Which Came first? The Body or the Mind?

Jump to Last Post 1-41 of 41 discussions (303 posts)

68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 60
  staynegativeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Defiantly the mind.
  reply report
2. 0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  what made the body?
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  imagination can access the infinite.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  imagination is integral to comprehension.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It really isn't, I disagree. Often imagination gets in the way of true understanding.
  reply report
  78
  Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  83
  mythbusterposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I hate it when that happens!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  einstein: "imagination is better than knowledge"
  
  when you predict the consequences of an action, you imagine it first.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's fine - but then you impose your preconceived beliefs on what should happen, and therefore impede on true understanding.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Also excellent Cecelia! Unfortunately I gotta go, but really look forward to reading the rest of this thread later.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "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.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think superstition is a subset of imagination, but perhaps yes I am speaking of superstition.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  it is imagination based on fear, yes I agree.
  report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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).
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  imagination can be misinterpreted as fact, true. But fact, like established theories born from imagination as well.
  
  Is mind the ability to imagine? Imagination is predictive of outcome, which in present brain theories, what intelligence is.
  report
3. 59
  SunSevenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Funny
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you think it's hilarious.
  reply report
4. 59
  Beelzedadposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That articulates quite nicely my viewpoint that the mind is a result of the complex biological processes of the brain.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks.
  
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  body evolved from rudimentary brains, correct?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  More correctly, the brain would evolve "along with" the body.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What about Sir Stephen Hawkins ?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think his condition is an example of the brain evolving along with the body, we're talking millions of years here.
  
  Stephen is an example of what hard work and rigor will accomplish, despite his bodies condition.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Not true, brain activity doesn't exist in a foetus until 25 weeks of gestation - until then it is essentially "a hunk of meat."
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  what is making the heart beat? isn't it reflex?
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "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
  reply report
  62
  Dmianposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
5. 57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If you think evolution has created us,then perhaps body came at first,gradually mind evolved into it.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This should be true if and only if you consider theory of evolution. From a creationist or spiritual point of view,it must be mind, which someway get bonded with the body.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Now, that's funny right there... Ha-ha!
  reply report
6. 67
  RKHenryposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
7. 61
  Shahid Bukhariposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think, the Egg came first ...
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  that's just what i said.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Eros. Attraction.
  
  Fascinating topic.
  reply report
94
Jewelsposted 16 years ago
Hermetic Philosophy "THE ALL IS MIND: The Universe is Mental." We manifest everything from the mind.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  James
  
  PS, Hi Jewels.
  reply report
2. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is very plausible.
  reply report
  94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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......
  reply report
  94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  .........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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  scale is irrelevant
  reply report
  94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well the dim still contains some version of light.
  reply report
  94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There is always light to be found regardless of how dark the mind gets.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dark matter does outweigh the light when compared to space, but the light shines through, regardless...
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
Of course I agree that the mind designed the body. It's only common sense.
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
Mind designs all physical changes in evolution.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  and that is the end of this thread seems like we all agree.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  lol That was quick, now if only the scientists could gain consciousness.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think they're awake yet.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it's just the fact that consciousness is less evolved in mob mentality.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It only takes one person passionate about it to write it convincingly in a book for it to become accepted knowledge. No one has done it. Or if anybody has done it, it is not heard loud enough.
  
  Truths need champions in the earthly realm.
  reply report
60
freeeasycouponsposted 16 years ago
According to me mind is come to first and that true.
reply report
75
skyfireposted 16 years ago
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 ?
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  so did a mindless body come first?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see amoeba having a mind anyway.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  define mind
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  in this case consciousness
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  there are many definitions of consciousness which ones are you using?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  amoeba being conscious about life & death.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  amoeba eats. why? it is conscious of the discomfort of not eating and fears it.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is a really dangerous use of the word conscious. Anthropomorphism is way too often a tendency of humans.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  anthromorphism is sometimes the only way we can express things, because we are human. Human emotion is a subjective experience of energy and matter interactions.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure amoeba is even aware of any feeling of not eating.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  so it's not eating then, it's just moving to absorb! what made it absorb substance to keep it going?
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Biological mechanics sans a ghost in the machine.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  cellular automata, correct?
  
  But then it remembers mechanisms of movements. does having memory define mind?
  report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It is only memory if it can call it up when it is not using it, otherwise it is still simply automation. I do not believe amoeba to have the sort of memory that is a prerequisite for mind.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh and how does it eat, does it expand and contract (i really do not know, but i am exploring a theory)
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Your last four words were great: accommodate my impure imagination. Ahh, such honesty!
  reply report
78
Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  if intelligence is not mind, do you have mind if you have no intelligence?
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  it is an uncomfortable world view, which means you need to challenge it.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  if you are compelled to participate in this forum, what you're doing is exploring the limits of what you know.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Always
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent!
  reply report
  83
  mythbusterposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't mind if I don't have intelligence, but it bothers the people around me when I'm acting/speaking without intelligence.
  
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  78
  Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for that, I would like to explore that.
  reply report
74
lorlie6posted 16 years ago
The mind has to have the body as it's carrying case.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  who decided to have a mind, the body? so was it moving mindlessly without a mind? How did it move?
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
Yahoo answers:

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.
reply report
1. 0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am using human language to communicate intent.
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  lol, and this is why I plan never to leave academia by becoming a professor and paying graduate students with my grant money to contribute to my research in this area
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  the point is to challenge limits of understanding.
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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?
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  these nanosnakes are like vertebrates.
  reply report
59
Obscure Divineposted 16 years ago
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!
reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
"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.
reply report
1. 0
  crmhaskeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent, clear point showing intelligence at the cellular level. Consciousness is the programmer, higher consciousness is higher intelligence.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  are they 'new' only because we are not actively engaging them or purely genuine? meaning, aware/active of that instance within the consciousness?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think anything is original only the language changes.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If we see something in space or a ufo, this would be a new conscious reaction from other things we have seen. lol
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And did you have the same conscious thoughts as other things you have seen before or did it open a new gate into thinking?
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years 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.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You should have listened to me; you're bonkers! Maybe you should just support the future of androids, with that limited way of thinking.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Just focusing to fit the entire landscape into a pot, Obscure...
  reply report
61
richardheftposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 78
  Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Who created God's intelligence?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  well that presupposes that G-d can be defined outside of myth.
  reply report
57
andromidaposted 16 years ago
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
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Some of the so-called "greatest minds" also get perplexed by a bologna sandwich; do you know why? Any conjectures?
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Because they have no answer or concrete evidence
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  you know your goddess worship is not understood by many here.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Bawahtachahihikadontauntudi!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  feelings are ruled by the goddess archetype. Mercurial types worship the feminine form. I bet my cold coffee you are female body worshiper!
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I like the female body, especially if they have big bubble butts & huge silicon breasts, if that's what ya mean?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  u-huh...
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, you like that type as well? Dang, Cecilia, I didn't know you had it in ya... You go girl...
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You get the real point now-feeling.I can feel whatever I like
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't sound like it. It sounds more like "you can read whatever you like."
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It sounds like you write whatever your consciousness telling to you to feel
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ah, the overlap:
  
  sensation (instinct) collectively floods the expressive (reason);
  completely changing the playground of the parallel. good times.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I hope so, it is better than "copy & paste" type thoughts that stem from fabricated BS via random outside sources.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  let it percolate...it will connect
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I did that a long time ago, now I'm chatting with you... Hmm, you really like coffee, don't ya? I haven't drunk that stuff in months.
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Glad to know that you got all the knowledge from inside source
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I've had many painstaking journeys to reach my level of ultimate supremacy, let me tell ya!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  a lot of people slapped you along the way?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No, actually they didn't, but I sure-as-hell did!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Slap yourself? I couldn't do that with conviction to be honest. Did it hurt your face more or your hand?
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I mainly just rammed my head into inanimate objects, during the process! I started doing this at age 3, seriously!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  you realize it may mean you have ASD?
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  google it and guess what i mean
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How can you not know what ASD is? AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ADD ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  RIJAJ RELAX ITS JUST A JOKE
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you.Level of consciousness is the key point-all living creatures are conscious,level of consciousness is the difference maker.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  (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.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ( whispers quietly: it is absorptive, not subjective; subjective is the reflect. x collide y dispense z. ; but you didn't hear it from me )
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  (oh ok)
  
  TWENTY ONE SAYS ITS ABSORPTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE. SUBJECTIVE IS THE REFLEX.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  it's the neat gadget of whateveritis that's collecting info.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It's already all there for the taking...
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  By the way, do you need evidence for a bologna sandwich? ...Just curious.
  reply report
2. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  57
  andromidaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely,soon you too become one of the greatest minds,at least to me
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  thank you, but that's too much for me to actually agree with. Let's just say I come from the creative business.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 16 years ago
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'.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Could the first life-form develop and multiply without mind and conscious reactions? I think it may be impossible to get a second life designed by consciousness if the first wasn't.
  reply report
61
Jeramiposted 16 years ago
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
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh, there is no true glory in humbleness; please, shine your light upon us.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't wanta to show all my cards.
  Especially when in all probably they will all be trumped.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
the male came first. get it?
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is the wrong forum for that..., try the relationship section! Ha-ha!
  reply report
2. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  totally! the female fragmented and then one part of is lost in Obscure. GET IT OBSCURE?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No, he was talking about ejaculation (came versus cum); get it? You just screwed up a perfectly fine joke by the hubber 'aware', but oh well. Ha-ha!
  reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
relax folks it was a joke .
reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
single celled organisms came first
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
2. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  and protein snakes came before that...it's just made of chemicals that gathered from elements spewed out by stars.
  reply report
  64
  awareposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  and you sure of that ? the creation of earth?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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)
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That guy needs a hobby. LOL. MIT...
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  the book was his hobby, his job was consultant and dean of three universities.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is of course a judgment. Sometimes you see it and it takes a hold of you and then, it owns you and you cannot stop.
  reply report
3. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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 )
  reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
3. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  thought to much...what? or did you mean too much, apparently the sentence needs re-thinking.
  reply report
  64
  awareposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  chicken or egg?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  consciousness
  reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
to too two 2 dos nei
reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
egg dinos laid eggs long before chickens
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah-yeah, dino-dung before BS... Woot-woot!
  reply report
64
awareposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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.

Cosmic Truth
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.

Human truth
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.
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That was a load of BS. There ARE different levels out there; not that permeation of poppycock that you just proclaimed! Geez!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  why is it important to have a concept of superiority?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Superiority is just the fun turf in which higher awareness sits.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  don't make me go there, obscure you're not going to like it
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ...Bring it! I like almost everything, even the stuff I detest!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  you seriously have to look at fractal images to have the "level" of understanding this requires.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ha-ha! I did that, in the '80s. You still seem to fail the fact of branches, levels, and irregularities of life/existence. Interesting...
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I was in High-School in the late '90s. There was nothing in your last reply, that is true. Yikes!
  reply report
2. 94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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...
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  is better not a word that assigns value?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.)
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That particular form of contrast only works upon the deluded, not me.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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 )
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What in the hell does my sanity got to do with this!?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  is that a happy platypus avatar or are you just happy to see us?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  that would be a tree with a face. I took the picture during the fall in Las Vegas. . I thought that display was brilliant!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  gotta go, be back, hopefully not soon!
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Challenge and/or defy, it is all the same thing. Just like Chess games, can often equal a tie.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  that would be a stalemate, i think. where one escaped not by skill but by chance.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ...You wish. A tie, stalemate, and deadlock is all the same, without your excuses, your insanity still remains.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'd rather be insane than inane.
  
  (that is a preference not an attack)
  report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  report
59
susanlangposted 16 years ago
I think they both arrived at the same time. One can-not function without the other.
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  there is merit in this argument...hmmm...
  reply report
59
susanlangposted 16 years ago
Right?
reply report
1. 59
  susanlangposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  opps, this-------> ! ? <-------- not that
  reply report
0
kimberlyslyricsposted 16 years ago
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 :
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
2. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No brain needed!
  reply report
74
waynetposted 16 years ago
Er.... the chicken!??
reply report
1. 59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm... breakfast time yet? No, we are not talking about laying eggs. Geez! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  74
  waynetposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Like I basically said before: Break out the swine! It's breakfast time!
  Waynet has just cast down some culinary knowledge for that arse... Oh well, we all got to die somehow.
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
61
Rayalternatelyposted 16 years ago
Is this a trick question, or does biology not exist?
reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 94
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely nowhere.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  no forum goes anywhere but it fuels some thoughts for future hubs.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "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?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I was speaking about the message in a forum versus a hub, not SEO properties upon a dub. Dang, girl!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  so?
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What? Or, was that: "So what?"
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  the thread is dead...
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Are ya?
  reply report
59
susanlangposted 16 years ago
Interesting thoughts abound here.
reply report
59
Obscure Divineposted 16 years ago
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?
reply report
1. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  define zero, bet you'll say nothing.
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Zero divides infinity...and/or 1 divided by zero......
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  which means what in english...
  reply report
  59
  Obscure Divineposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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
  
  Ha-ha!
  reply report
82
Shil1978posted 16 years ago
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!

Interesting question!!
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
82
Shil1978posted 16 years ago
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!!
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
60
THE Butterscotchposted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
82
Shil1978posted 16 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting religion you have there. Good luck.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - still didn't get around to reading anything. K - don't blame you. This is easier.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How about....you quote Dawkins last statement of the book.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  JulesGeromeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mon Dieu ! LOL This religion forum is a joke, people ! I doubt you can be 'real'. LOL
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It would have substance if you ever added anything of substance. Very real you are.
  reply report
  61
  JulesGeromeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If you only see a dog in my avatar, no wonder my answers don't look real.
  report
  61
  JulesGeromeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think a dog would be more understandable of course!You drown yourself in too may words that don't mean anything ! LOL
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Still nothing of substance from you.
  report
  61
  JulesGeromeposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Why would I show you some substance ? You don't show me any base where I can stand LOL
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Make your own base, or do you wait on others to define your mind and base?
  report
82
Shil1978posted 16 years ago
Marinealways, by "mind" are you referring to God? Because, I am not bringing God into this discussion.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
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.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
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.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
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.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Which Came first? The Body or the Mind?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Which Came first? The Body or the Mind?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies