The Gaia hypothesis

[Boojum]

I didn't really think about thinking until I took acid

 

 

 

 

[buddy13]

reminds me a lot about the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", subjective(a flower being beautiful because you understand the process of life through it) and objective( the flower being beautiful based on your subjective view of what is beautiful or not), seemingly opposite views, coming together to form a whole and balance.

the paradox; the more I try to define something(being subjective) the less I see of its objective beauty?

blah blah blah…

 

[Guest]

A little food for thought....

 

If consciousness is necessary for understanding, then for language to be necessary for understanding, language must be necessary for consciousness? 

 

https://www.ivoryresearch.com/writers/lucy-wills-ivory-research-writer/

 

Interesting conclusions re language and consciousness .

 

No absolutes but .... 

[Davey Jones]

Been off the boards about a week and this little party started without me!

 

Gutted I missed this as I have a lot to say which is mostly regurgitating Alan Watts who talked about this in depth

 

I respectfully disagree with you @Cambium I dont think I could disagree more to be honest, respectfully

 

Language is so limiting its unbelievable, all life forms are conscious, trees, bacteria everything life reacts to the environment, do you agree a tree is conscious @Cambium Alan Watts claims a gong is the most simple form of consciousness like a piezo crystal which I dont understand if I am honest but he says it so many times

 

Theres nothing thats really complicated but when you try and put it into words thats whats complicated, the most natural processes that just happen have incredibly complex equations and nomenclature, look at Laplaces heat equation for example, heat flow its the most natural thing you can conceive yet you wind up solving partial differetial equations with boundary conditions and you cant ever get it perfect because applying language to it is like trying to drink up the ocean with a fork

 

Its the whole scientific method trying to explain things in words yet reality is just so much more than simplifying it into words

 

The psychedelic experience for me made me realise that its not language thats limited its the human brain, your brain is simply too feeble to process this reality which you exist within and in fact the whole of science is a sham, its just fitting patterns everyone can recognise its not actually real but it does work in the limited conditions its applied

 

The upanishads spell it out, did you know that according to Buddhist philosophy that even the Brahman (god) doesnt know how she does the cosmos, she just does it like that, in exactly the same way you open and close your hand, you just do it silly like this, but you cant put it into words

 

How do you grow each individual hair?, maintain all these bodily functions without even thinking about it? its the same way that Brahman does the entire cosmos, there are no words it just is and when you come to terms with the fact that reality is so awesome that you wont ever be able to comprehend its quite magic, I used to be prickly in the fact that everything had an explanation waiting to be discovered only to realise that it doesnt and science is encroaching into areas it has no business

 

If you want the mathematical version check out Godels incompleteness theorem, hes proved beyond any doubt that its impossible to know and write down all the rules, its incomplete by definition and its the reason AI wont ever be conscious because if you cant list the rules you cant program the system, reality is just too much for us humans to handle, the human brain is the most complex thing known to exist and we cant even deifine what consciousness even is let alone explain it, many great thinkers argue that spacetime itself is actually conscious and thats where it comes from and we kind of tune into it

 

One consciousness experiencing it in as many different ways as possible

 

Quote

All forms of life and being are simply variations on a single theme: we are all in fact one being doing the same thing in as many different ways as possible
Alan Watts

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Davey Jones

[blackpoolbouncer]

@Davey Jones I love you man.  

Well articulated.

 

It is mens own smartness that leads to our own downfall when we try and contemplate such things.

 

We think we are clever with our words and equations and "things" that we think are technical marvels yet are in reality don't hold a candle to what life is.

 

I offer all the money in the world to the man that can make me a copy of something from nature that is alive. Anything you like? A trillion dollars to make me one leaf? You can only make one thing and that's a gift that was naturally bestowed upon us.

 

We exist as a species on our own plane of perceived intelligence based on our own standards, we can't fathom anything other than this because we are what we are. 

We also used these standards to judge other life based on our acomplisments as a species.......Which actually, isn't that intelligent, at all. 

 

For all we know the ant is looking back at us with a far greater consciousness than ourselves yet we are too full of self belief in our own perception of intelligence to comprehend the other ways of thinking/being that are doing things a bit differently from us.

 

 

Top and bottom of it is we don't know shit, will never really know shit, never did know shit and cannot ever comprehend such shit. As Davey said. The world is a miracle we have no explanation for. 

 

A joke for you all. It's not very funny.

 

What does the tree say to the mycorhizal fungi? Nothing but the fungi gives it just what it asked for......language. who needs it. 

 

I'm trying hard to put this into words but words do not quantify what I am trying to say.

By definition language falls short of understanding because when we talk of things other than the limits of human construct then words just aren't available. 

 

Can you tell me so I explain why the flower is beautiful? Think about it. You can't. Sure you can say. "Oh it's pretty and I like red" but that's not really why you think it is "beautiful"..........See even describing the feeling of perception of what we feel as beautiful isn't a just term because it is so much more than that but words don't describe.

 

Life is indescribable......really and anyone who trys to describe half of what's going on is I'm afraid doing it a grave injustice at best. 

 

I hope that makes some sense. It was a bit of a ramble once I got going 

 

E2a  why are we an intelligent species?......because we "think" we are. Does the rest of the world's inhabitants view us in such regard, in their own way. A way we couldn't possibly imagine where such feeble things as words are meaningless.

 

Also to add. It's our own thinking and perception of intelligence that has allowed us to become removed from this world and no Ionger be cohabitants but rulers.

Edited July 5, 2018 by blackpoolbouncer

[Fry]

And that's that one solved.

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, blackpoolbouncer said:

@Davey Jones I love you man.  

Well articulated

 

^^^^^^

And again , thank you 

[Cambium]

@Davey Jones im not exactly sure what it is that you are respectfully disagreeing about. You're basically saying what I've been saying throughout the thread, that language is insufficient to explain the neurological experiences of life. Where we differ maybe is that I think our knowledge will continue to deepen and therefore so to will our ability to explain and therefore understand what it is that life does experience.

 

No, I don't think that a tree is conscious. I think that word isn't up to the task of describing what a tree experiences. I think we can say that a tree reacts to stimuli. That a tree has some sense of awareness of it's surroundings and environmental conditions. That trees can build beneficial relationships with other forms of life etc.. does that equate to being conscious? It amounts to something neurological, but I don't know that it's consciousness, and we won't know until we delve deeper and gain understanding.

 

You seem to be suggesting that humanity has come to a dead end regarding it's ability to understand and explain all of this. What has given you this impression? The neurology of other life, plant nuerology as an example is a very new field in it's early stages of development. What is it about the development and progress made through the scientific method that makes you think that we will not continue to open up new arenas of understanding and explanation via language as we unlock new avenues to expand the knowledge bubble?

 

This is currently the realm of philosophers like Watts, because there hasnt been much science actually being done. This has changed recently and things are moving forward at a faster pace. Certainly with regard to plant life, the discovery of the soil food web and in particular the myc associations are what opened the door to seeking out better understanding of what, as an example, a tree is experiencing. 

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that I don't think we are that far apart in how we see this.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cambium

[Cambium]

10 hours ago, blackpoolbouncer said:

What does the tree say to the mycorhizal fungi? Nothing but the fungi gives it just what it asked for......language. who needs it. 

 

It may be a joke, but even with our current rudimentary understanding we know that this is not true. Signalling pathways between plant and fungi have been identified and studied. There is two way "communication" that alllws for the tree to get what it needs from the fungi and visa versa.

 

There seems to be an awful lot of woo in this thread. I think this is rooted in the woo of the quantum and the fact that it asks more than it answers. It gives and anchor for the philosophical musings of Watts et al, which I wholeheartedly encourage. It does not however negate our ability to continue to expand our knowledge bubble and as we continue to expand that bubble, our ability to use descriptive language to comprehend incredibly complex things will continue to expand.

[blackpoolbouncer]

 

 

[Davey Jones]

I got about halfway into a detailed reply and lost the bastard by being a moron

Gutted

 

So here goes again!
 

Quote

 

im not exactly sure what it is that you are respectfully disagreeing about

 

 

I disagree that understanding is required for consciousness or that our language could ever be developed to explain complexities like reality

 

Quote

There isn't consciousness without understanding and therefore without language

 

We dont really understand anything at all and quantum mechanics is the ultimate subject to hit this home. The atom is the basic building block of everything and the hydrogen atom is the simplest of all, just one proton and one electron. The Schrodinger equation is the most tested equation in all of science, if memory serves its been proved accurate to one part in 10 billion. When you look at it its showing you both mathematically and graphically that the electron jumps from one orbital to another without passing through the space inbetween, the electron is literally teleporting and for an instant its in two places at once. You dont need to be Einstein to ask WTF, it simply defies not only classical physics but logic on a fundamental level

 

The double slit experiemnt is another case, the experiment was modified so that the detector was placed after the slit so that we observe after the event and what do you know?, its like the photons go back in time to make the observation match reality. It just flies in the face of basic logic and it takes us to something like the holographic universe where space and time are simply an illusion, reality is looking like something we cant comprehend

 

I think theres only the most basic of concepts which we can explain with words like Pi, Pi is simply the number we get when we divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter i.e there are Pi diameters in a circles cicumference, language explains that but I think it would be possible to know this without language just experience would suffice in the same way you can look at a so called quarter and say thats not a quarter through experience

 

Language is a pretty smart innovation that humans have come up with, Terence Mckenna calls language a miracle
 

Quote

 

No, I don't think that a tree is conscious. I think that word isn't up to the task of describing what a tree experiences. I think we can say that a tree reacts to stimuli. That a tree has some sense of awareness of it's surroundings and environmental conditions. That trees can build beneficial relationships with other forms of life etc.. does that equate to being conscious? It amounts to something neurological, but I don't know that it's consciousness, and we won't know until we delve deeper and gain understanding.

 

 

Different people have different understandings of words, sentient means (or used to!) to me that you are alive and know that youre alive, thinking about thinking but I learned quite recently that sentience just means you feel pain but different people have different definitions for the same word

 

A tree is conscious though, theres no doubt about it. It responds to the environment, angles its leaves to get maximum sun, grows up to outgrow other competitors its roots avoid contaminated ares etc etc its aware of its environment, its conscious all day every day same story for bacteria and microbes conscious doesnt mean thinking its just being alive (which has ropey classifying criteria) and responding to the environment

Like I said alan watts says a gong is the most basic form of consciousness which I dont get but I attribute that to my limited understanding because time after time Alan Watts has showed me he is far more intelligent and articulate, I am just a n00b.

Quote

You see, it depends on what kind of attitude you want to take to the world. If you want to put the world down you say, "Oh well, fundamentally it’s only just a lot of geology. It’s a stupidity, and it so happens that a kind of a freak comes up in it which we call consciousness." And that’s an attitude that you take when you want to prove to people that you’re a tough guy, that you’re realistic, that you face facts, and that you don’t indulge in wishful thinking.

 

It’s just a matter of role-playing. And you must be aware of these things; they are fashions in the intellectual world. On the other hand, if you feel warm-hearted towards the universe you put it up instead of putting it down, and you say about rocks, they’re really conscious, but a very primitive form of consciousness. Because, after all, when I take even this crystal here, which is glass, and go [knocks knuckles against it]… well, it makes a noise. And that response, that resonance, is an extremely primitive form of consciousness.

 

Our consciousness is much more subtle than that, but when you hit a bell and it rings, you touch a crystal and it responds, inside itself—it has a very simple reaction. It goes jangle inside, whereas we go jangle with all sorts of colors and lights and intelligence, ideas and thoughts—it’s more complicated. Both are equally conscious, but conscious in different degrees. That’s a perfectly acceptable idea, it’s just the opposite of the idea—see, all I’m saying is that minerals are a rudimentary form of consciousness, whereas the other people are saying that consciousness is a complicated form of minerals. See? What they want to do is to say everything is kind of bleagh! Whereas what I want to say is hooray, you know? Life is a good show!

 

What you have said above is to me the definition of consciousness, being alive and aware with response to the environment, neurological processes require neurons which is another subject, how neurons do what they do is another big mystery its clearly an electrochemical system but its far from clear how you make memories from that

 

Quote

You seem to be suggesting that humanity has come to a dead end regarding it's ability to understand and explain all of this. What has given you this impression? The neurology of other life, plant nuerology as an example is a very new field in it's early stages of development. What is it about the development and progress made through the scientific method that makes you think that we will not continue to open up new arenas of understanding and explanation via language as we unlock new avenues to expand the knowledge bubble?

 

I dont think we are at a dead end yet and that there is still important things to be done and investigated but I do feel we are at the point where science is touted as something it isnt, I do like science and its certainly been very useful and improved a lot of lives but its advertised as this thing thats going to lead us to all the answers when in reality its not even real it just works. It is my opinion that we arent capable of comprehending reality, not in another milliion years its just too much its highly likely there are dimensions and forces we just cant detect and thats where the reality is a simulation thing comes from i.e. what we perceive is a lower level representation of whats really there, its something like that

 

Time and time again science has changed at the basic level, it was believed for a significant chunk of the scientific age that newtonian mechanics was the nature of the universe, it was beyond doubt and then Boltzmann happened and it came out that the universe is statistical in nature which was a massive shock. I believe the same thing will happen to quantum mechanics where they discover its not that either and the new thing will probably be overthrown because it wont be that either, it wont ever be anything we can define because we cant list all the rules by definition its vague because theres always pieces of the puzzle that are missing. Science does work though and thats the important thing that gives us the result its just not what its advertised to be and most scientists are completely unaware of this and how limited it is. Most scientists think all the answers are out there waiting to be discovered but not many consider if the human brain is actually capable of understanding, who says we are capable of understanding?, its not guaranteed

 

Quote

Anyway, just wanted to say that I don't think we are that far apart in how we see this.

 

Maybe we arent mate, I do appreciate your input and I know subjects like this interest you so its all good fun

 

Quote

There seems to be an awful lot of woo in this thread

Theres woo and theres woo, this is the nice woo thats within the realms of possibility

 

Scientists want everything pinned down and defined but not everything is rational or has definite descritions and on paper that makes it woo but its surprising the examples you can think of that are impossible to define only give examples of, love is the classic example that no one can really define only say wwhats the symtoms

 

 

Quote

Do other animals feel/display empathy outside of survival in numbers

 

I would imagine so but I dont have an example, jealousy is a trait animals share have you seen the monkey and the cucumber, where you can get two monkeys to do a task for a piece of cucumber and they are fine with that but start giving one a grape and introduce inequality and the ripped off party gets really pissed off, its quite funny actually

 

 

These two poems are a work of genius
 

Quote

There was a young man who said, Though
It seems that I know that I know.
What I would like to see
Is the I that knows me
When I know that I know that I know.

 

 

Quote

There once was a man who said "Damn!
It is borne in upon me I am
An engine that moves
In predestinate grooves;
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."
—Maurice E. Hare (1886-1967)

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Davey Jones

[Cambium]

8 hours ago, Davey Jones said:

I disagree that understanding is required for consciousness or that our language could ever be developed to explain complexities like reality

 

Well that is fair enough and I'm not sure that I do think it's required. I was musing on the discussion more than anything. I suppose a lot accurate representation of what I think would be that evolution brought these things together and they necessitate each other. Much like tools and the control of fire allowed for the brain to develop and the intestinal tract to shrink. How these things developed, or evolved is a mystery and will probably remain a mystery for ever. Just like the all the other things lost to time.

 

8 hours ago, Davey Jones said:

A tree is conscious though, theres no doubt about it

 

Based upon your definition of conciousness. Many folk better than i would argue that a thing must be aware of it's self awareness to be considered conscious. This just goes further to demonstrating that we are currently involved in a linguistic challenge as well as a scientific one. There is no understanding to be gained by us co stinging to use anthropomorphic terminology to attempt to describe what are categorically non human experiences.

 

Quote

Like I said alan watts says a gong is the most basic form of consciousness

 

But all this does is further muddy the waters of terminology that only have a relationship to the human experience. Yes, it's a pleasant thought experiment to chew over, but it doesn't help further our understanding. Something that science is currently undertaking.

 

Quote

I do like science and its certainly been very useful and improved a lot of lives but its advertised as this thing thats going to lead us to all the answers when in reality its not even real it just works

 

I know you understand the scientific method, so I won't even go there, but if some are advertising it as something it isn't, that isn't an issue with the method, that's a people issue. All it is is just a tool that helps us understand the world and universe around us. Maybe it does have a ceiling and is ultimately limited in it's ability to explain and therefore help us understand certain aspects of creation, but currently there are no indications that this is the case. It's a slow march of discovery and understanding. Including the terms and concepts that help us understand. 

 

Quote

Time and time again science has changed at the basic level

 

Which as you sort of point out, is the beauty of science. The slow march to understanding irrespective of previous discoveries and dogma. There aren't many serious theoretical physicists that don't think at some point the human brain will begin to lack the powers of comprehension over what reality is. But personally I think that science will then start work on overcoming this. The slow march.

 

Ultimately, I don't think we know. I just think that we have the potential to know. We are a burgeoning species on the cusp of the great filter and if we make it through then there is real potential for us to understand our reality. But none of that is furthered by us muddying the water by forcing the human experience into that of the experiences of other life.

[Dodgee]

LNot sure if this is off topic but what the hell, the mention of flowers/beauty got me thinking, like that old adage...

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"m

 

Coz the general consensus then seemed that a flowers beauty is universal to everyone on a very basic level.

 

but me personally... You could put a field full of the planet's greatest brightest most beautiful flowers in front of me and it would elicit precisely zero emotional response.  

I mean it, nothing, nada, zilch,   in fact of anything it would probably give me the hump thinking of the fucking pollen count.

 

Whereas in the other hand... Every time I see the equation 

 

E=mc2 

 

Stunning.  Just simply stunning.

 

Weird I know but there it is...

 

my point is if it weren't for conscience then beauty would be universal and appreciated equally by everybody, the same way we all feel hot/cold/hunger.  

 

nobody ever said hunger..in the belly of the beholder coz despite the truth of that statement we all experience hunger, hot, cold equally. Because they're biological functions.

To witness something and see it's beauty i would argue isnt. 

that's conscience...

 

it's literally "all in the mind"

 

[Fry]

On 07/07/2018 at 11:51 AM, Dodgee said:

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"m

 

Coz the general consensus then seemed that a flowers beauty is universal to everyone on a very basic level.

 

I can see where you're coming from but I think you're on the line of talking semantics. It's not the flower itself that matters per se, it's the dynamics at play behind finding beauty in anything.

 

Love the first line of your sig btw dodgee

 

[stu914]

On 07/07/2018 at 11:51 AM, Dodgee said:

You could put a field full of the planet's greatest brightest most beautiful flowers in front of me and it would elicit precisely zero emotional response.

 

I've always felt that way about other people's holiday snaps.............