It is my opinion that the mind came first.
It is the mind that wills the formation of a body that will enable it to express itself.
The body came first, without it the mind has nothing to manipulate. It's like a painter trying to paint his ideas without a brush, paints and canvas.
In our finiteness we are incapable of comprehending the infinite. We can image it, but we cannot truly comprehend it. Just because our reality depends on a time = 0, that doesn't mean it must be so.
Imagination is not comprehension. No matter in how many ways we imagine the infinite, when we come back to reality the question "what created it," still exits.
Nothing had to, even if that feels impossible.
imagination is integral to comprehension.
It really isn't, I disagree. Often imagination gets in the way of true understanding.
How could you learn algebra without the ability to imagine a missing element? How could you learn about black holes without the ability to imagine them? You darn sure can't see one. How could you invent anything without imagining it first?
einstein: "imagination is better than knowledge"
when you predict the consequences of an action, you imagine it first.
Yes, that's fine - but then you impose your preconceived beliefs on what should happen, and therefore impede on true understanding.
all scientific discoveries are based upon a working hypothesis. The hypothesis came from the imagination of the scientist. She will then test it to see if what she imagines to be the reason for the phenomenon is indeed correct.
Imagination can access the unknown and is a precursor of knowledge.
It is a precursor to the exploration of knowledge yes, but when we impose our imagination on knowledge, we stop learning.
As a side note I wanted to add I enjoy debating with you because it never turns into a fight
Why thank you, same to you. we are both after getting the dendrites to form new connections, I suppose. challenging and opposing arguments only serve as motivation to push the connections.
"It is a precursor to the exploration of knowledge yes, but when we impose our imagination on knowledge, we stop learning."
imagination is not superstition. You are talking of superstition.
I think superstition is a subset of imagination, but perhaps yes I am speaking of superstition.
imagination leads to superstition in some cases. (One example, image of helix nebula is used in more than 5% theist hubs for their belief in creator).
When we look at the engine of an automobile, we see a collection of metal parts and ask, where does the energy come from to propel the car forward? We observe in this collection of parts an image of "gray matter".
It is when the engine is functioning properly does it then produce the energy to move the car, just as the brain needs to function to produce the mind, and it is the collection of parts or gray matter that must first be in place working correctly to produce a functioning mind.
That articulates quite nicely my viewpoint that the mind is a result of the complex biological processes of the brain.
I had also hoped that it pointed out the fact that the body and the brain MUST EXIST FIRST in order for the mind to function.
body evolved from rudimentary brains, correct?
More correctly, the brain would evolve "along with" the body.
Not true, brain activity doesn't exist in a foetus until 25 weeks of gestation - until then it is essentially "a hunk of meat."
what is making the heart beat? isn't it reflex?
"The human heart begins to beat and pump blood through the embryo around day 22 of gestation. The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.
The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison. As a functional organ, the heart begins to beat very early, even before it has assumed its final form. Interestingly, the heart begins to beat even before structures such as valves and septa (singular: septum; the muscular walls that divide the chambers) have formed! The initial contractions are peristaltic--that is, they proceed in a wave-like fashion along the length of the heart. Later, once the heart has matured and the conduction system has developed, the contractions proceed in an orderly, timed sequence through the different chambers."
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/se … .An.r.html
interesting, plus does anybody remembers how we were born if by mind in the question its meant for consciousness i think i didn´t had one till i was like 3 years old becasue anything before that i cannot remember.
If you think evolution has created us,then perhaps body came at first,gradually mind evolved into it.
So are you saying that a body can be mindless? why then does it need to store data in the form of chemicals to replicate what it knows.
Now, that's funny right there... Ha-ha!
I concur. Its gotta be the mind. How else do we account for all the extra surges of energy and the unexplained magnetic energy found in the Devil's Triangle?
Yeah, final answer its the mind.
Hermetic Philosophy "THE ALL IS MIND: The Universe is Mental." We manifest everything from the mind.
or "A mind". I studied a little bit of this years ago.
the human body in silence expresses the fullness of universal philo, as said to generate from a complete collective of understanding. That the tomb of the body is only expressing a minute instance of it. Something to that effect.
Though the mind absent of body -at least the human- is an abstract thing, since no human has been known to exist without a body-mind cooperative.
PS, Hi Jewels.
It is indeed very plausible. My understanding from mapping states of consciousness is that the human body or human existence gives a standpoint, or a viewpoint. But the mind is separate from the body, I've no doubt on this and have experienced it many times.
Mapping consciousness is an amazing body of work to be involved in. But am also tickled by the fact we, in a human state of consciousness will only ever achieve a minute understanding of THE ALL. Our mortal minds have the ability of kindergarten kids compared to much broader states. It is extraordinary to be in states of Bliss for example, even more extraordinary to go into higher states where you have no reference point.
Leaves one awestruck by how small our minds are.
I totally agree with you, even though the pre-school/Kindergarten folks will rebuke ya, but not me. Albeit, some minds are way greater than others, due to the higher levels of......
.........of spiritual evolution perhaps, Worth pondering. We mere mortals speak allot about human evolution but understand very little of a spiritual evolution. Often confusion exists between the small mortal mind knowledge and confuse it with a higher knowledge. And the heaviness of materialistic reductionism masks wanting to know the difference.
Not that small mind knowledge is not important, it is. But to apply it, know it and see the difference between the limited thinking mind and the higher mind - that's when a person can be extraordinary.
Scale of the higher mind is irrelevant. It's not fathomable. The confines of the lower mind are to be transcended, least one continues on a circular treadmill of nonsense.
Well the dim still contains some version of light.
Of course I agree that the mind designed the body. It's only common sense.
and that is the end of this thread seems like we all agree.
lol That was quick, now if only the scientists could gain consciousness.
Maybe it's just the fact that consciousness is less evolved in mob mentality.
They don't want to state belief these scientists, just facts. They're like politicians, anything they say can cause their credibility, hence their grants.
There is logical observable evidence though to support the belief, not just faith. The evidence is that mind designs the physical body. Animals consciously design themselves to hide or appeal to their environment.
I'll vote for Body. I don't see Mr. Amoeba being conscious about his life so why should mind be first in all cases ?
there are many definitions of consciousness which ones are you using?
That's a question I've been pondering for some time, whether consciousness of one's own mortality is really that important to consciousness. That implies self-awareness, which obviously implies complex thought. But does that really matter to call something conscious. I don't know - right now I'm inclined to say no?
amoeba eats. why? it is conscious of the discomfort of not eating and fears it.
That is a really dangerous use of the word conscious. Anthropomorphism is way too often a tendency of humans.
I'm not sure amoeba is even aware of any feeling of not eating.
then what is causing it to eat? is it not the awareness of its own discomfort and the relief that experiences once it eats. It is aware of relief associated with eating. It is also aware of hungry.
The thing is amoeba's don't stop eating, which implies it does not experience satiation, which implies there is no relief. Like machinery that repeats the same action until it is turned off, amoeba eats. I don't think it feels anything about it.
so it's not eating then, it's just moving to absorb! what made it absorb substance to keep it going?
cellular automata, correct?
But then it remembers mechanisms of movements. does having memory define mind?
Oh and how does it eat, does it expand and contract (i really do not know, but i am exploring a theory)
People who want to escape their bodies are probably a little unbalanced. I wouldn't mind a new one though. Preferable young, perky and willing to accommodate my impure imagination.
Body came first if we're going with what we have some evidence to support. Amino acids and some lightning, something of that order, single cell creatures with single-celled bodies. Intelligence evolved down the line, which eventually became self-aware, and asked the question, "Which came first, body or mind?" Debate to ensue endlessly from there.
If you cannot express yourself through speech nor move, yet you are thinking, predicting, knowing. Does that mean you're not intelligent? Intelligence is separate from the expression of intelligence.
Is intelligence what mind is?
I don't think so no. The contribution of language to consciousness is highly debated at present. In three years when I have to write my dissertation I hope I have more of an answer than - I want to say it doesn't matter, here's why lol
if intelligence is not mind, do you have mind if you have no intelligence?
That depends highly on how you choose to define intelligence. I choose to define it as the ability to learn, manipulate what you've learned, and apply it differently depending on the circumstances.
In that case, anything with a brain can be said to have a certain degree of intelligence, and as I believe a brain is a prerequisite to consciousness, then I'd have to say no intelligence means no mind. Logically this is where I am at present - I don't like it though.
it is an uncomfortable world view, which means you need to challenge it.
I do on a daily basis. I have yet however to find a cohesive argument to sway me otherwise. In time I will either grow more comfortable or change my worldview. My worldview is highly dynamic, it is and always will be in a state of change.
if you are compelled to participate in this forum, what you're doing is exploring the limits of what you know.
I don't mind if I don't have intelligence, but it bothers the people around me when I'm acting/speaking without intelligence.
The relationship between language and consciousness, that's what it was! I was trying to remember what thread it was on, when I read someone saying something about that and offering information on it through email.
I knew someone had said something very interesting that i wanted to follow up on, but couldn't remember who, what or where exactly. (Gotta start taking Gingko Biloba.)
So here I found you again, and checked out your profile and hub titles, and read the one specifically on this subject. Fascinating. Really great stuff, I look forward to reading more, and thanks for sharing your explorations here.
Definitely earned a fan!
Not at all. In fact, I would call that the nightmare of quadriplegia.
Mind is born of intelligence. I don't think they are inseperable. I think it is easier to see intelligence without "mind" as we seem to be saying here, than it is to see "mind" without intelligence.
There's some great stuff that's been done on this stuff. John Searle's Chinese Room experiment, and the idea of the Turing Machine, are two examples of where this plays out (some of it anyway) in philosophy if you are interested. It's great stuff.
I've written paper's on both of those, definitely very interesting stuff indeed. The last paper I wrote on the subject was the contribution of mental imagery to intelligence, perhaps I'll post it as a hub.
thanks for that, I would like to explore that.
How Does Amoeba Obtain Its Food?
In Amoeba, the pseudopedia extend out and wrap around a food particle in a process called phagocytocis. The food is then engulfed into the amoeba and digested by the enzymes contained in the amoeba's lysosomes. As the food is digested it exists in a structure called a food vacuole.
this was a learned process that was passed on through the genes.
Genes, why did it evolve genes? to repeat itself. It desires to store what it knows. that's why it evolved to fish.
it wants to eat better and swim faster. it became more complex, why it remembered what it knows in each generation of evolution. the genes are its memory outside of its body.
If DNA chemicals are memory agents that are deliberately aligned to store information, isn't it reasonable to say that the life form remembered something in its life and valued it enough to pass it on.
You could say its an accident of nature, but that too has no proof.
I think you are overreaching here. I don't think it desired to do anything, it is a dangerous place to be to project human emotions in such a way.
I am using human language to communicate intent.
There are limits of human language, and understanding. That is the problem really, the only way we can truly understand something is how we understand it - projection is dangerous.
I don't think the amoeba has intent, I think it just is.
Well, how else are we going to communicate things that can only be described subjectively like hungry, remember and intend.
These are things we cannot know through observations of life-forms from outside. The only clue is the result of the action.
A monkey foraging another monkeys hair is random until you see it put something its mouth...it is eating lice!
the point is to challenge limits of understanding.
Amino acids formed nanosnakes that wriggled. Proteins move in order to balance itself. Then it became more complex. It became a membrane that protected a gene. Why would a chemical desire/acquire the ability to store chemical information, if it does not intend to store that information and protect it from being unbalanced?
There is no "College Degree" that can answer this silly question... Only a warped mind via textbooks will think the body made the mind. LOL!
"The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison."
the cells make it beat in unison, it has information in the dna to do so. It "remembers" how to make a complex brain.
You really are overreaching, at this point I don't know how much more we have to discuss. You are playing with reductionism. I disagree with you, to apply human emotions on biological machines is projection, not explanation really. It can be said, but it can't be proved, and as such this mental experiment will go nowhere. That's why I don't really like philosophy, it runs itself in circles.
Rid yourself from the haze, fall back to the root; I'm moving, but yet, I'm not moving at all; the only limitation is limitation of one's self. Art reveals itself in psychic understanding of the inner essence of things and gives form to the relation of man with nothing, with the nature of the absolute.
well, biological machines originated from dawkins. He himself then later explained that he did not mean for this to be the conclusion.
He said of his wildly successful book "The Selfish Gene" I should have called it "The Altruistic Vehicle".
That said, this is only a philosophical debate if it has no logic-based proof. But that is not the case here.
Cells acquires data (learn) through the membrane and stores data (remembers) through the genes.
(by the way, you don't have to go on...it's just to further a premise)
electrochemicals flow through our brain causing it to think. But what are electrochemicals? they are charged fluids. what is making it course through our brain, is it not thought?
Thought is making the brain move to connect dendrites, you think first and recognize similarity before they attach.
If memory and learning is not intelligence then what is? If you can't learn or remember, do you have a mind. NO. If you have memory and you learn does that mean you're intelligent....that is the big question.
IS a computer intelligent? No, the programmer is.
Excellent, clear point showing intelligence at the cellular level. Consciousness is the programmer, higher consciousness is higher intelligence.
wouldn't consciousness be the program and instinct the boot disk of it? The entire operating system would crash if consciousness was the programmer, no?
human consciousness is an applied instance.
I think consciousness is the only thing that enables life to survive new experiences in the environment they have never previously experienced. I don't think it's already programed, I think it designs the program as it goes by consciousness.
are they 'new' only because we are not actively engaging them or purely genuine? meaning, aware/active of that instance within the consciousness?
lol I don't know, I was thinking of new as something never previously consciously conceived before. But new could also be something we have seen or thought about before, just not in depth. Also meaning aware and active to make conscious decisions.
I don't think anything is original only the language changes.
If we see something in space or a ufo, this would be a new conscious reaction from other things we have seen. lol
Oh but I've seen one! Seriously. It was a freaky day because my friends and I started calling each other. We saw the same thing.
I don't know what it is hence I cannot identify it. It was moving in jagged directions.
Few days later, my other friend saw one too. So it became a freaky week. It was on the radio after a while and the crazies started panicking. It was around the cusp of 2000.
And did you have the same conscious thoughts as other things you have seen before or did it open a new gate into thinking?
I sure acted like those guys in Zechariah Sitchin's ancient illustrations, looking at it like a monkey who saw a tractor for the first time. As a matter of fact, I followed it but it was very fast.
it was super weird.
My sister also saw one when she was six. It came down really low and it was over an empty lot in front of our old house which was swampy.
She said she heard what sounds like talking and even copied it. everybody thought she was fruit loops of course even me, when she told me about it later on...and then I saw one. So she's no longer alone in fruit loop kingdom.
You should have listened to me; you're bonkers! Maybe you should just support the future of androids, with that limited way of thinking.
If you define the mind as intelligence, then the source of all intelligence is God. Of course the body, each individual cell is also intelligent, smartly defined, perfectly functional just as every atom, planet, sun, etc. is intelligently designed, constructed. Everything is a manifesttion fo God's thought. God's thought precedes the body, mind, ice cream, good, evil, etc.
LOL! It all has to be unified, without that "God theory" stuff. ...All & everything as one entity along with the woo-woo, and all that other hoopla & ballyhoo... Fun-fun!
well that presupposes that G-d can be defined outside of myth.
The truth is even the greatest minds of world get puzzled thinking about which came first.But I can say no one can answer this question perfectly,you will get only speculative answer.Do you know why?Any guess
Some of the so-called "greatest minds" also get perplexed by a bologna sandwich; do you know why? Any conjectures?
Because they have no answer or concrete evidence
They must lack feeling, I suppose. How unaware can people get, one may ask. The need for concrete evidence is a hindrance in its own right of ignorance. If you actually have to think about this, you are way behind on things... But, luckily, there are different levels of awareness. ...Find that in ya science books. Ha-ha!
you know your goddess worship is not understood by many here.
feelings are ruled by the goddess archetype. Mercurial types worship the feminine form. I bet my cold coffee you are female body worshiper!
I like the female body, especially if they have big bubble butts & huge silicon breasts, if that's what ya mean?
You get the real point now-feeling.I can feel whatever I like
It doesn't sound like it. It sounds more like "you can read whatever you like."
It sounds like you write whatever your consciousness telling to you to feel
ah, the overlap:
sensation (instinct) collectively floods the expressive (reason);
completely changing the playground of the parallel. good times.
I hope so, it is better than "copy & paste" type thoughts that stem from fabricated BS via random outside sources.
If you were a neuron, you would have died a long time ago. Knowledge needs to connect in order to grow my dear goddess worshiper.
First of all, the goddess worship assumption is all wrong. Personally, I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Ha-ha! I'm not a single neuron. WTF? You need to gather your molecules or something, maybe form a pattern of awareness, as opposed to the bewildered shot-gun approach towards madness.
Glad to know that you got all the knowledge from inside source
Yeah, I've had many painstaking journeys to reach my level of ultimate supremacy, let me tell ya!
a lot of people slapped you along the way?
No, actually they didn't, but I sure-as-hell did!
Slap yourself? I couldn't do that with conviction to be honest. Did it hurt your face more or your hand?
I mainly just rammed my head into inanimate objects, during the process! I started doing this at age 3, seriously!
What is ASD?
Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a defect in the septum between the heart's two upper chambers (atria).
WTF(?) are you talking about? LOL!
I'm not going to Google your hogwash, besides, I don't even use "Google" as a search engine. Thanks, though, dear one in need of a DP & ATM while getting an FCS & ACP in front of the camera! Ha-ha! Google that, but cut the "safe search" off. LOL!
they have evidence. what they don't have is the right measure. Current consensus is, consciousness is an accurate model of reality hence it is no longer a question of whether life is conscious, rather what level of consciousness it is.
this is current science opinion. so a lot of people here saying that an amoeba is not conscious is using arguments that was true 30 years ago.
I agree with you.Level of consciousness is the key point-all living creatures are conscious,level of consciousness is the difference maker.
(I wish marine were here. He would kiss you on the nose)
It's true, self-awareness is difficult to measure because it is subjective. But response to environment is a good clue that something has an awareness of an external model of reality.
( whispers quietly: it is absorptive, not subjective; subjective is the reflect. x collide y dispense z. ; but you didn't hear it from me )
TWENTY ONE SAYS ITS ABSORPTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE. SUBJECTIVE IS THE REFLEX.
Pipe down woman, they'll hear you!
all knowledge is inclusive to the human condition, Andromida.
humans -like all living things- are born with complete information to sustain their existence. Humans are the only creatures 'aware' of that ability/consciousness and thus end up in the Need To Know Factory oiling the gears of something they already dominate.
The mind is the tool -a really fancy one and often a needy child-bully, but nonetheless a tool. But that's just my bit.
It's already all there for the taking...
By the way, do you need evidence for a bologna sandwich? ...Just curious.
it's true what you say. It doesn't stop me from having an opinion. I'm not going to say I won't go there just because a great mind hasn't
and by the way a great man has...rene descartes (it is actually in the backwater for a long time because there is no adequate brain theory. There is one in the works today. Not yet concluded. My opinion is influenced by that.
Absolutely,soon you too become one of the greatest minds,at least to me
seems like there are two options at work then, Cecilia darling:
the bootstrap consciousness -instinct (non human)
the expressive consciousness -reason (human only)
in that view, all things have consciousness.
As said many times, the expressions of the parallel deemed levels are those instances where the tres priori 'play'.
there is ofcourse a hierarchy of mind in terms of model of reality in relation to self. So that being the case...
before the first life-form, was there mind?
I know that I'm late.... Just read the first coupla pages and then ran right over.
All of the post on the first pages seem to be correct and then it occured to me that I agree that the mind was reffering to "Intelegent design.
I know very little but did watch a film that showed the development of a baby beginning with fertalization. There were all kinds of shinney little things in the egg AND then something triggered theem to rapidly and simultaniously line up in a streight line to form the spinal cord.
knowledge came first in the formation of the baby's spinal cord.
Again I'm only thinking out loud here,
But I think that; I think ; it goes something like this.
Fertalization came first. Wisdom was soon made evident when spinal cord assembled, Brain stim became evident producing a brain that then took over??? I think; but know nothing
Your last sentence makes a lot of sense when it comes to people being dumbfounded by ignorance, when you say "I think; but know nothing." Yep, you should have got more in touch with the interstellar matrix of things by way of sensory, universal tacts - that way, you'll never have to say such things again.
Some times I find the opportunity to dumb down a bit and I take it every chance I get. Don't wanta be a smarty pants.
Ahh, there is no true glory in humbleness; please, shine your light upon us.
I wouldn't wanta to show all my cards.
Especially when in all probably they will all be trumped.
Ha-ha! Okay, whatever works for you. I used to believe in that humble modest crap, but after a while, a person learns that it is BS to limit one's self to such restraints. LOL! Have fun with it; enjoy & explore in this chaotic, galactic galore.
This is the wrong forum for that..., try the relationship section! Ha-ha!
totally! the female fragmented and then one part of is lost in Obscure. GET IT OBSCURE?
Yeah, but that may only apply to this planet's origin; I doubt if we fall in sync with that, no matter what Cicilia says. We are like foreign ants that represent a plague to the harmony, and we are damn good at it. LOL!
and protein snakes came before that...it's just made of chemicals that gathered from elements spewed out by stars.
pretty much. stars created the elements and the elements created chemicals, chemicals created matter that gathered (or fell) into each other.
Epic of Evolution, chaisson (MIT astrophysicist)
the book was his hobby, his job was consultant and dean of three universities.
figures. no 'time' to enjoy it.
my good friend is like that. Ever faithful to the cause yet lacking the fruitful engagement of the cause.
single cell invites multiple elements of that cell and perhaps a consciousness of those elements to infinite point(s) [meaning, again, x collide y appear z] and those instances 3³ domi, equi, subi as needed].
hence, reality (consciousness = 3³ (n) ad infinitum )
i think we will go down as the life form that had potential but failed to realize it. reason being? we simply thought to much.
On this planet, perhaps. There are many other places for our universal awareness to spawn, and Earth is not the only place that this happens. In fact, I often look at this place like I would elementary school - just another level, but I will say, it does get tiresome for select few 3rd graders to be setting amid a giant Kindergarten class.
We should just be happy with what we have and stop exploring and asking questions? Ridiculous. Exploration is what gives many motivation to keep living. The obvious and answered is boring. We have a higher consciousness with greater abilities than other life to explore, why waste it?
thought to much...what? or did you mean too much, apparently the sentence needs re-thinking.
i read that divine knows how to make a mean hash brown. which came first the french fry or the tatter tot? when we know this all will be well . and ob will pocket 50 cents from ad sense. and sleep like a baby.
Actually, I used to be in affiliation with tha big-big "adult entertainment" biz, ya! This was a few years ago, and I also used to make mega-cash promoting online gambling, before it became illegal in the U.S.A. So, yeah, AdSense is queer to me. Ha-ha! Besides, I was also a content writer and I do have this poor trait called 'awareness' that is laced with a heightened sense of intellect! Hurray & woot-woot!
Since we all operate in emotion, (aka forces of energy to motivate as to move,) at that level we are all alike.
there are those who are disorderly in their handling of this energy and there are those who are stable.
In order to create stars, atoms must peel off their electrons. It takes a great amount of energy to do this, but when it happens the result is plasma. An endless resource of light.
Is it higher mind? It is not. It is just mind. When it has removed its negativity, it becomes a source of understanding. Nothing is inaccessible to one who has transcended his own darkness.
All possess this mind, the problem is, the feelings of lack, the "i need" prevent them from expressing this light because they are busy filling their darkness with light. The result is an endless cycle of patching up.
And so become pushed away from light spewed out as non-radiate substance, the way matter is spewed out from the sun.
Better is an illusion. It is just clear or unclear. free or imprisoned. scale is irrelevant.
To me what this means is once you remove perceptions of lack, you will see that you already have all that you need.
That was a load of BS. There ARE different levels out there; not that permeation of poppycock that you just proclaimed! Geez!
why is it important to have a concept of superiority?
Superiority is just the fun turf in which higher awareness sits.
you seriously have to look at fractal images to have the "level" of understanding this requires.
Ha-ha! I did that, in the '80s. You still seem to fail the fact of branches, levels, and irregularities of life/existence. Interesting...
You were in high school in the 80s. Read the book, don't just look at the pictures. Maybe you'll pick up something new.
New discoveries are mostly founded upon discarded knowledge of the past.
Depends on your level of self awareness as to whether you are swayed unconsciously by your psychological shortcomings. If a person unconsciously is subject to reactions then their is a lack of awareness and there will be great difficulty in having free will as a result.
Best become super aware to ensure when you strip away the electrons your star can actually shine and doesn't get snuffed out!
It's best to understand your subtle layers to really get the grasp of what animates the body. Emotions have fuel, it's not just emotions that drive the body. You would do well to involute deeply inside your anatomic structures to understand the workings of not only the organic levels but the influence of thought as a substance outside of the body and it's interaction within the body. Separate Emotions from Feelings. Energy is such an all encompassing word for separate forms of sensation. So using the work Emotion is misleading, and using the term energy is not satisfying when mapping consciousness.
There are certainly different levels 'out there', paradoxically it's "in here" where you find them. You can only ever find answers to Absolute Truths by going inside self. Everything else is a mind circus which is why forums are so popular.
87ceciliabeltranposted 4 minutes agoin reply to this
I sure acted like those guys in Zechariah Sitchin's ancient illustrations, looking at it like a monkey who saw a tractor for the first time. As a matter of fact, I followed it but it was very fast.
it was super weird.
I don't know why, but it only let's me reply to a certain extent before I have to copy and paste while I see others able to keep replying. It is kinda irritating. lol
So you did have new thoughts and were stunned in how to react or what to think?
I think we make new connections in our minds when seeing something for the first time. I think the new connections raise our consciousness. The more we observe, the more we are conscious of.
my point was, whatever it is the connected in my brain is not unique. It has been felt again and again. The individual expression changes and colors it. When I say nothing is new, what I mean is we are really playing with basic emotions that are universal. The only difference it how we color it with the palette of the unique situation we are in.
A monkey seeing a tractor for the first time would be equivalent to a human being who cannot even dry a car who sees an alien spaceship fly in front of her.
Originality comes from perspective, but the mind, the mind has a basic language that transcends culture and the individual.
So, you don't believe in uniqueness? Tell Webster's dictionary, as they are going to be pissed that you scratched their dictions of unique. Hmm...
I am not attached to uniqueness but I believe that since everyone is unique that kind of evens out the playing field.
Who would you save a child or Obama?
At the level of life both of them are equal in value.
The basis for transcendence is to see value at its basic essence.
Humanitarian ideals are founded upon essence. All men are created equal, yeah?
Now not all men are equal in value to you, because ofcourse you love your girlfriends more than the doorman. (or is that an assumption) The individual is the one that assigns value based on his perspective.
Ahh, you totally screwed the reason for levels. Why does Obama have to come into things (on your last comment), plus, the child that you speak of, may have a higher age of existence, so to speak - in universal terms. Sometimes, you just can't find Earth-bound reference via textbooks to the things that ARE in ACTUALITY.
sometimes a person who does not want to entertain an idea and yet engages it is trying to tackle something more personal than it seems.
you're not interested, you're not interested. You dignify it by saying its wrong or stupid...something personal is going on.
Just because you're no better than your brother doesn't mean your mom will love your less...ofcourse (that is just an example of how personal issues can get in the way of seeing reason when its presented).
the point is, who is to say that the child or Obama is more valuable, when their value is relative to who values them?
You're the one who speaks of value, dear. Personal problem, ya say? Hmm... I thought this conversation was more universal. By the way, define demise, while you're at it. What is that, in universal terms... Ha-ha!
is better not a word that assigns value?
my point is the insistence of being better is a delusion of a mind who fears being worse.
(that is an argument not an attack.)
That particular form of contrast only works upon the deluded, not me.
who's deluded is also relative to the world view.
I'd say someone who thinks that his notion of the world holds greater value could be true in some levels (like for instance philosophy) but megalomania on textbooks.
(that is an argument not an attack. We both know that despite evidence, you are actually quite sane, relative to some people )
What in the hell does my sanity got to do with this!?
is that a happy platypus avatar or are you just happy to see us?
The term 'better' is what you try to defy. Speaking of such matters, I sure hope I'm "better" than I was before, since my level of awareness has increased greatly, over the aeons of time. Duh!
I am challenging it, I do not defy it. I am presenting an alternate world view. Because if I were to think of better. Then I would say that if this were chess, you would be on the defense.
Challenge and/or defy, it is all the same thing. Just like Chess games, can often equal a tie.
that would be a stalemate, i think. where one escaped not by skill but by chance.
...You wish. A tie, stalemate, and deadlock is all the same, without your excuses, your insanity still remains.
LOL! Yeah, I agree with that one - Your "I'd rather be insane than inane" statement.
I was joking about the insanity, since one has to border the edges of such, while speaking about some of these topics. But, yeah, being inane would suck - even though it is more common nowadays.
I have a question: Why have you said, a couple times, that "this is not an attack" within this thread? WTF?
I think they both arrived at the same time. One can-not function without the other.
I believe it's an even split for humans, so many poor souls still waiting for their minds, unaware to know what to do with their body.... you get what I mean, ya :
but its so varied. When you look at children, some are slow and some are fast. If you measure them in some ways some would have an advantage, but then you measure them in other ways the ones who were ahead start to lose out.
In the same way, you'll say rich people are better off...until you meet someone who has no concept of wealth. And to this person, a bunch of bananas is wealth in the same way your cousin feels about his Benz.
The mundane requires hierarchy but essence, essence transcends it.
In the same way, the different forms of life forms and matter manifestations though they vary in complexity are actually equal to its simpler counterparts in proportion.
100 is ten making ten rounds round the same block. In the end it's all about 1s and 0s. Is it there or is it not there?
Hmm... breakfast time yet? No, we are not talking about laying eggs. Geez! Ha-ha!
oh.... ok eggs it is then!
The body became the chicken when the egg hatched and started to break wind on the dance floor, then the mind got tired and reverted back to a pile of pig slop....hmmm I love these intelligent discussions!
Going back to body and mind.
a chicken's life may seem to not have value than another human, but to the chicken that's its wife versus the hick that's going to eat it.
Just saying hierarchy is relative.
things in actuality are also relative to the observer.
for instance human rights are things in actuality but in your reasoning (as in some hypothetical child that "may" possibly more valuable than Obama) it is not so.
as I was saying, it depends on your world view.
This debate has existed for a loooong time. Thought it would be interesting to find out where we are now in this topic.
no forum goes anywhere but it fuels some thoughts for future hubs.
"Hubs," at times, are like an organized forum in its own autocratic right, with the ability to approve or unapprove comments to keep the 'comment field' in order - as opposed to a free-4-all forum with random comments... I know, because I have made several so-called "unapproved" comments throughout this site (on my other account) during my short stay here. Ha-ha! ...So, you believe the forum goes nowhere but your hubs do?
I have a lot of google hits from all over the world, so yeah totally. I have people who contact me through facebook to ask for advice, clarifications and help with their research. So ofcourse it does. It also drives traffic to my website.
I was speaking about the message in a forum versus a hub, not SEO properties upon a dub. Dang, girl!
Reply to (as you say) Which Came First? ...The particles or the mass? The randomness or the organization? The cellular life from something or the consciousness via nothingness? The peace or the chaos? The One or the Zero?
Zero divides infinity...and/or 1 divided by zero......
To some, it simply means "it's party time!"
I searched for 3 or four minutes before posting this reply, to see if there are any other screwballs discussing the meaning of zero. I didn't find anything, but I did find a funny quote.
Okay, I rarely ever do the "quote thing," unlike you, but I like this quote about zero:
"Dividing by zero...allows you to prove, mathematically, anything in the universe. You can prove that 1+1=42, and from there you can prove that J. Edgar Hoover is a space alien, that William Shakespeare came from Uzbekistan, or even that the sky is polka-dotted.”
— Charles Seife, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
To answer the question - I would think it has to be the body that came first. I am not sure if the smallest of living creatures at the cellular level have a mind? Of course, you can't prove it, but that would be the popular consensus.
So, I'd say the mind evolved at a later stage. Without the body, there would have been no scope for the evolution of the mind. Now, if you bring the "soul" into it, then that's another question!
How do the smallest lifeforms stay alive and adapt to the environment without mind? The proof is that they wouldn't. In evolution, body parts evolve due to conscious reactions to the environment. If the mind build parts in evolving, why wouldn't it be the mind that began?
Question is if mind came first, and so if indeed the mind came first, where did it exist? In vacuum? And also, how did the "mind" find the "body?"
Btw, here's the definition of "mind" --- that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason!!
I don't know where or when mind originated or even where it's located, but I think it was easy for the mind to find body when mind designed the body according to evolution. If body designed mind, I think this would contradict evolution.
Definitions with mind and consciousness are wide open. There are no absolute definitions of them, hell, no one even knows where or what they are for the most part. lol
I do agree mind is responsible for thoughts and feelings or lack of. I think thoughts, feelings, and reason are all simply levels of having a higher mind and consciousness, while not ruling out mind at the simplest level of life. Mind at the simplest level is not defined much less the most complex level.
hhhmmm. I believe the mind,hidden away somewhere, though I have no Idea where. then again, the mind could've developed throughout various lifetimes...but the soul is always there before mind and body.
I think you are getting confused with the 'evolution' analogy. We are talking about the "first" - i.e. the absolute first thing that came to be.
Now, I cannot imagine how the "mind" could have existed in and of itself, as the first thing that came into being!! And remember, by "mind" we are talking about something relatively advanced - as described in the definition of mind in my previous post.
If you take that into account, surely, it had to be body, and for a primitive organism to have lived, it didn't really require the "mind" - as you would define it. All it needed was to respond to its environment, which it could have done without really needing the "mind" - as the definition would have it.
I am talking about the first life that came to be also. If you believe evolution that we all started from one cell, how could the cell have evolved without mind to evolve? Your definition is not correct as the only defintion of mind, there are many and hardly any are agreed as correct. It takes mind at the smallest level, even at cell level, communication, survival, selection all happen, the same things we attribute to consciousness. You can find some information based on things you can rule out, I think life surviving without mind or consciousness to survive is impossible. Also, they physical changes such as sexual selection in evolution would also be impossible if mind didn't design the physical traits.
Interesting religion you have there. Good luck.
lol You should be the one to talk about religion being the religious non believer you are of either life having intelligence or design. If you would understand the theory you have so much faith in, maybe this would be observational to you as well. Good luck understanding your faith.
Ah - still didn't get around to reading anything. K - don't blame you. This is easier.
How about....you quote Dawkins last statement of the book.
I have never quoted Dawkins. Oh wait - that does not work for you........
Great religion. Everything is conscious. Conscious evolution. All a design. Love it. No need to back it up or anything.
Prove me wrong!
lol I have backed it multiple times and you have failed to pose reasons for why i'm wrong accept for faith that you think i'm wrong. I am asking you to quote his last statement of the book you recommended to me so we can discuss it.
Repeating your religious beliefs is not backing it up. Yes - we get it - you believe and do not read anything. I know. Good for u.
You are clearly scared to post a quote from the own book you recommended. Sad.
The other sad thing is, I can use your sources to back my claims.
Mon Dieu ! LOL This religion forum is a joke, people ! I doubt you can be 'real'. LOL
It would have substance if you ever added anything of substance. Very real you are.
Yes. I am real. You only show a dog in your avatar. LOL But that's not why I'm asking. It's your answers that don't look real to me.
If you only see a dog in my avatar, no wonder my answers don't look real.
Make your own base, or do you wait on others to define your mind and base?
Marinealways, by "mind" are you referring to God? Because, I am not bringing God into this discussion.
No, I don't have a belief of a god, maybe a designer/designers, but none I can define and none that I believe absolute. Simplified, mind that drives thoughts. I don't know what or where is the origin of mind. I think mind is at the simplest level of life, cells must display many attributes of mind to survive and multiply including working memory.
by marinealways24 8 years ago
What made science, did science make science or did imagination make science?
by couturepopcafe 8 years ago
When the mind is separated from the body - the state known as transcorporeal - it has been reported that all coverings are removed from the Light.People who have had near death experiences report seeing a light. What does it take to achieve such states intentionally? Meditation?
by Beata Stasak 7 years ago
Who are you? How you describe your true self?The identity we live with in our daily lives is essentilly data, the physical facts /height, eye colour, race, religion, address, marital status../ But if we realize that our true identitities are something else altogether /spirit, intuition, inner...
by Rod Martin Jr 8 years ago
C.V.Rajanposted said on the forum thread, "What is the most important verse in the bible?", "The kingdom of God is within you."That's one of my favorites, as is the one that we can do the miracles Jesus did and even greater ones. Also, I like the one where Jesus reminds his...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 3 years ago
----"Memories pressed between the pages of my mind."Whoever wrote this first line of Elvis Presley's song titled "MEMORIES" must have been blissfully unaware of the unfathomable perplexities of quantum mechanics, one of which posits that in the sub-atomic world, memories...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
What is your perception of death?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|