Could 'Being' be a building block of the Universe like Time and Space?

1. 61

   LewSethicsposted 13 years ago

   We all agree that Time and Space are essential parts of our Universe, even though we can't always agree on what Time and Space are.  I think that 'Being' is another one of the building blocks, and that everything possesses an essential identity (spirit), similar to its physical presence, and its presence in Time.
   Even atoms.  Quarks.  Photons.
   Everything has its own 'I AM'.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's called your soul.  Given to you by GOD. 

      replyreport
   2. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure I get what your asking/saying here but I like this idea that everything has its own 'I AM' state of being. Deep

      replyreport
   3. 70

      maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If it is quantifiable then it is down-loadable...Once defined, consciousness can be reduced to 1's and 0's, downloaded to a self-replicating super computer, and you could live forever as software in that environment...just a thought...

      replyreport
      1. 61

         LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think your downloadable statement is only a possiblility but not a law of nature.  That computer would also have its own sense of being

         replyreport
   4. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No spirit or soul required.
      
      Just consciousness which is self awareness to recognize that which exists.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Some people define consciousness as the soul.
         
         What do you define consciousness as? I mean what is "mind". What causes Deja Vu? Why do we sometimes see things in dreams that we remember dreaming about days later when the dream comes to pass?
         
         Just stating 'it is' "consciousness" doesn't do it for me...

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's a mystic's take.
            Self awareness.
            Ability to think.
            Deja Vu is just the subconscious using what it knows to convey knowledge in a split second, which isn't consciously known. Remember, the subconscious is the right side of the two chamber brain. The left side is rational, sane and reason. The subconscious is more powerful than the conscious mind, because it's not limited by perception, but includes all that is perceived.
            I'm not a dream interpreting expert. So, I really cannot say.
            I'm sure it doesn't. Not much I can do about that.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That would be incorrect, then. Consciousness is a function of the brain.
            
            
            
            By not doing your homework before posting makes your conclusion appear really silly.

            replyreport
      2. 69

         Glenn Stokposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I like that answer. Without consciousness and self awareness we would question if time and space actually exist at all. Similar logic to that age old question... If a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it fall, would it make any noise?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you Glenn.
            Actually, I think you misspoke here. If we didn't have consciousness(self awareness), then we would not question if time and space existed. There would be no reason, because we wouldn't be aware of it's existence.
            Yes, I realize that, however, physics proves a tree that falls does in fact make noise regardless of whether or not, someone observes it or hears it.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Glenn Stokposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Goes to show I need to proofread my own typing. Yes indeed, I meant to say NOT in that sentence.
               
               If physics proves anything, which by the way I totally agree with, it is only so if there is an overall consciousness to view the "proof".

               replyreport
   5. 0

      klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The "I AM" is a fine idea, but the problem is what people link to their "I AM"
      Our "I AM" is often identified by our ego, and not by our true essence. Therefore people think they are mothers, fathers, sons, wives, teachers, doctors, etc. In reality these are things they do, but it's not what they are.
      
      We are spirits having a human experience.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And, there's no way the possibility exists that we are just humans having a human experience? At least, from a position of what reality shows us?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Reality is deceiving.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               To claim we are spirits is deceiving. Was that your intent?

               replyreport
   6. 48

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Please elaborate as to what you understand from the word "Being" in the above post.

      replyreport
2. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
3. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago

   Space and Time are relationships. They are beyond essentialism. They are the measures by which the physical can be described. Without them, "Being" has no place to Be nor any room for change. By this very dependence, "Being" is subordinate to both and cannot, therefore, be considered "essential."
   
   Beyond that, to assert that all things have sentience or awareness that they can proclaim or acknowledge, whether we can interpret that or not as humans, is simply too anthropomorphic to abide. Romanticism is nice, and fun, but it is not reasonable in the context you have here, at least in my opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, you sure use words nice, but your science is funny.
      I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with at all.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         A pathetic response to genuine engagement with your question. Pseudo-philosophy FTW!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think he just didn't understand a word you said.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               DING! 
               
               

               replyreport
         2. 61

            LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Space and Time are not relationships, they are defining aspects of existence.  They are where events happen.
            Your first paragraph was gibberish, your second paragraph is your opinion, and I respect that, but I don't agree with it.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               And this post truly shows you didn't understand what Shades said.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sup Cags. Still lovin' the Eagle.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     What's up Shades? Always a pleasure to see you and I'm glad you're enjoying the change I made. Btw- you up for a challenge later? Let me know around what time would be good.

                     replyreport
            2. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               While expect this will be pearls before swine, I'll take one last shot in hopes that you are more engaged in your question than you seem so far. Plus, I am bored right now.
               
               Space as a relationship:
               Space is the relationship between objects. With no object, you only have an ontology. When objects are placed in relationship to one another, space becomes "real." It is the relationship of the objects to one another that create space, not the other way around. Arguments can be made that one object alone does not prove space. I've even read arguments that two objects don't necessarily prove it either: If two objects are of the exact same size, shape, mass, etc., and exist in exactly the same "space" then there can still be no space, as the two objects can be argued to really be only one object, and the "space" in which that object exists is not space, it is the object itself (the space and the object being singular and therefore inseparable, and, I would argue, space is irrelevant at that point and unprovable, unless it becomes a measure of space inside the object, in which case, we've just gone from singular object to universe). For there to be space, it requires objects with differentiated relationships. Once you have two objects or more, you can then establish the principles of: Here, there, and places other than here or there.
               
               Time as a relationship:
               Time is actually largely dependent on Space, although not entirely (if you buy the singular object being both thing and space). Time is the measure of change. Without change, either change of relative location or some change of condition (size, color, shape, mass, strength or some other measurable trait), there is no time. If two objects sit in space but never move, never change in any way, there is no way to know if time still running or if has it stopped? Time is change. Change is the relationship of one state to another.
               
               
               
               
               If you are going to come to philosophy forums and pose questions, it's better to come with the intent of real discussion rather than the intent of being a smart ass. If something is unclear to you, it's not immediately rendered gibberish. It might have been articulated poorly--I am famously unclear sometimes, and accept that as a possibility quite readily--, or another possibility, if we dare even consider it, is that there might still be some ideas out there that you in your vast experience haven't considered yet. Some you might even enjoy wrestling with and arguing for or against in the legitimate pursuit of metaphysical or epistemological fun.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Right, space or time don't exist without someone to measure them.
                  Thanks for the lecture, but it's been my experience that pedantic answers are usually only enjoyed or believed by the pedant.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        This is the definition of space according to dictionary .com:
                        1.
                        the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.
                        2.
                        the portion or extent of this in a given instance; extent or room in three dimensions: the space occupied by a body.
                        3.
                        extent or area in two dimensions; a particular extent of surface: to fill out blank spaces in a document.
                        4.
                        Fine Arts.
                        a.
                        the designed and structured surface of a picture: In Mondrian's later work he organized space in highly complex rhythms.
                        b.
                        the illusion of depth on a two-dimensional surface.
                        5.
                        outer space.
                        
                        As you can see, your definition is 2nd on the list.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           It's not MY definition and don't bring me into your discussion with Shades, simply because you cannot defend yourself against his statements.
                           
                           You've actually picked the wrong person to even argue with on this topic, much less begin with me.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, you guys are both dicks, so fuck you.

                              replyreport
                  2. 61

                     LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     BTW 
                     I'm trying to get an answer to my legitimate question, you are just trying to re-define the parameters, but the question stays the same:
                     Could Being be a integral and fundamental part of existence?

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        As I have already stated, which is the actual answer you're looking for.
                        
                        Being = Consciousness(self awareness). Without it, you wouldn't know anything.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           How does that answer the question?  The question isn't 'does being (or conciousness) exist, but is it inate in the universe?  Why are you having trouble with that?

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Being is consciousness or are YOU having a problem understanding that?
                              I didn't say it does. However, as I have already said- if YOU didn't have consciousness, then you would not know of your own existence much less anything else. Or is this particular concept out of your depth?
                              I'm not having a problem with. It's YOU who isn't listening(comprehending).

                              replyreport
                  3. 77

                     Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Watching you try on metaphysics is like watching a toddler dressing up in his mommy's clothes.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        

                        replyreport
   2. 0

      Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Too anthropomorphic? How so? A sense of being is simply that. Even an amoeba has a sense of being.   I doubt it even understands that fact, but it is aware of its existence.
      
      Studies on plants have shown that they can differentiate as to whether they are growing beside other plants whose seeds were born by the same plant. So, they must have a sense of being.
      
      A sense of being means nothing more than that. You might be over thinking this. His conjecture isn't far fetched, that I can see.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Emile, it seems Breath needs to remake the concept in her own image or she'll have a hissy fit..

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Btw, you just proved in the above post that you have a comprehension(reading) problem.
            
            I stated in my post that Shadesbreath was a HE and then you responded with a not so nice post. A good show of your character btw.
            
            Then you posted a response to Emile's post calling Shadesbreath a female? When I cleared stated that Shadesbreath was a HE.
            
            WOW!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Oh my, I guess only you are allowed to insult others.
               No, that was on purpose, I think both of you are ill-read, and neither of your opinions are worth jack.
               Shadesbreath is a queer name, so i figure either way she is a strange one.
               As her acolyte I guess you must be strange too.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I haven't insulted anyone.
                  I see. Yet, your irrational speech is worth something?
                  Yet, another sad response. You really cannot tell when you're digging the hole you're already standing in deeper. Open your eyes? Otherwise, you might miss the fact that you're already in over your head.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     WTF are you talking about?

                     replyreport
      2. 77

         Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Emile R. I believe what you are talking about with the amoeba/plant thing is called "sentience" in the traditional sense (although science fiction frequently uses that term to mean a Descartian-style self awareness). For the sake of conversation I'll happily agree to either version here, and I concede the possibility that all basic critters or even plants could have something that fits one or the other definition. But the statement the OP made was not limited to organic, living cells or cellular constructs. His statement included "everything" including atoms, quarks and light. He wrote, "I think that 'Being' is another one of the building blocks, and that everything possesses an essential identity (spirit), similar to its physical presence, and its presence in Time" [emphasis mine].
         
         That is where I reckon his statement became anthropomorphic, and why I made that minor point. I'd call that more a direct response to what he actually wrote than over-thinking, but then again, you might be right. Wouldn't be the first time I did that.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We all have a different way of expressing ourselves. I would agree that  the word spirit might have been a poor choice, but he is not alone in thinking that everything in existence is 'aware' on some level.
            
            Science, at this point, has shown us that there is something not quite logical about this universe. The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event. We all know this. We all have different ideas as to what it means. If an electron appears to change its behavior because it is being observed, it isn't difficult to understand why someone might ponder that everything else was somehow aware.
            
            At this stage, it's anyone's guess what answer science will reveal. No one is a toddler in their mommy's clothes. Imo.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You are correct, the act of observation does change outcomes in certain experiments. I'm just unwilling to imbue those changes with the weight of evidence for inanimate matter having sentience. To me, that is the very definition of anthropomorphism (which I will say I still prefer to the more common investiture of that sort of thing as proof of divine or magical beings). So, we disagree. That doesn't mean we can't get along perfectly nicely.
               
               As for the last part... we reap what we sow.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you've hit the crux of the problem. I, personally, consider the possibility of energy being aware on some level as a direct assault on the concept of God. But, we apparently disagree on the meaning of more than one word.
                  
                  But, when two parties actively till the field; I see it as incredibly humble that one allows  the other to claim all the crops.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Humble? or did you mean arrogant?

                     replyreport
                  2. 77

                     Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Energy that is aware, were it to exist, does not necessarily have to be a threat to the concept of God. The presence of animate/self-aware energy might simply be another form of life, no different than us, despite being remarkably dissimilar. Frankly, that sort of life form could be called "further evidence" for the existence of God just as easily as it could count as evidence against. In matters like that, humans see what they want to see.
                     
                     
                     
                     I'm not sure what to make of that. I'd need more of the story implied by it to comment too far, but on the surface, I'd argue that unless the individual who is giving away the fruits of his/her labor has something to eat already stashed away at home, then what is being deemed humility here may turn out to be putting too much trust in his/her fellow man. It's a bit of digression to go further, and, for clarity, I'll just say that my "reap what we sow" comment was meant to explain why I wrote what I wrote about wearing mommy's clothes. The OP was rude, and after a few continued attempts at civility on my part, all summarily met with further insult, he got what he asked for.

                     replyreport
4. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   On the surface, I'd say I agree with this.

   replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   The answer sometimes given is that nothing exists unless there is being to be aware of it.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's almost as bad as someone arguing that a tree that falls in the woods and whether or not it would make a sound if no one was around to hear it.
      
      Physics says yes the tree would make a sound, even if no one hear it. If no one was around to observe the Universe, it would still exist.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      LewSethicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That answer gets the 'one hand clapping' award.

      replyreport
6. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago

   (We all agree that Time and Space are essential parts of our Universe)
   
   FWIW, I am one who does not agree with this statement.    As we define universe as all matter and all space, I can see how the idea of space is essential to the idea of universe.  Time, though, is simply a scaler, a human representation of motion, and the universe (nature) has no interest in our ideas about motions or in punching a clock.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Heretic! Burn the warlock!
      
      No.  That's not what I meant to say. I agree with you. Good point.

      replyreport
7. 70

   maven101posted 13 years ago

   All of this has been thoroughly examined and remarked upon by Sartre in his " Being and Nothingness " which describes  two types of being, the in-itself and the for-itself. To bring out that which keeps them apart, involves understanding the phenomenology of nothingness.
   This reveals consciousness as being essentially characterized through its power of negation, a power which plays a key role in our existential condition.

   replyreport