What is beyond space?

I'd like to introduce this thread for anyone to give any ideas on what is beyond outer space, how far does it go, what its made of, etc.

I've thought about it and if you look at the way the worlds features are made, mostly, they are individual cells combined with other cells that make up eventually form a living object. We are made of millions and millions of cells.

But what if the universe works the same way? It has been proven that we are within a spiral galaxy, and there is more than just our galaxy. What if all these galaxies around us combine to make this huge galaxy called the Super galaxy, and all the Super galaxies combine to make a Mega galaxy? And it just keeps continuing. Is that possible? There can be so any ways to look at it, the thing that is providing so much thought of it is we don't know everything that's out there, yet.

If anyone has ever thought about this, or anything closely related please feel free to share your theories :)

Space would be those galaxies. Say all the galaxies made a super, mega, giga, zeta, omega, ultra, mega-ultra, giga-ultra, zeta-ultra, and so on. They would all be space. All that space would be the universe.

Is that what the universe really is? or just the galaxies around us going "forever"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

I'd like to introduce this thread for anyone to give any ideas on what is beyond outer space, how far does it go, what its made of, etc.

---

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

There are three primitive categories of names, The names of things, and the names of the two elements of a thing. We abstract these elements. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot abstract from an element, and thus, one cannot predicate of it.

the universe ends does it not?

Both an ending universe and a non ending universe in impossible to imagine, and think of. What is on the other side of the universe? how can there be nothing on the other side of the uni? How can a universe be endless?

i have come to the conclusion that the universe loops. that is the most logical answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

---

And your posting that for the public to see? Making me look bad, to every one within this forum. Thanks, I sure do appreciate that. There's private messaging you know. And I'm in fact, correct about living things being made of cells. I don't recall stating "first principles", sir. And I know the basic principles of grammar very well, actually.

I'm sorry if this forum didn't make sense, I guess I learned my lesson posting it huh? So I don't deal with critical comments about my grammar, and what I don't know. Someone tell me if I should just delete this thread please, I'm still new here and I made a mistake, clearly.

nono, don't i personally have no idea why that post was made in the first place :D

the same thing happened in the religion boards when someone said you aren't supposed to capitalize the word 'atheist' and the whole argument broke out :cackle:

Dont worry about him.
Its funny that he complains about the quality of discourse on DV when almost everyone on this site grows tiresome of his hostile attacks on peoples intelligence and deliberately obscure writing style. He isn't trying to engage anyone in discourse he is just flexing his intellectual muscles.

I've always had this idea that there's just "white" outside the boundaries of perceptible space, but I don't believe that can really be a logical idea...

having nothing is impossible to comprehend. maybe the Universe loops or ends. Infinity seems to be near impossible :D. But if it ends, whatever outside it isn't white or black. it is not there. It doesn't exist. You can't describe what is outside the universe, because there is nothing there. It is impossible to fully comprehend the idea of nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

having nothing is impossible to comprehend. maybe the Universe loops or ends. Infinity seems to be near impossible :D. But if it ends, whatever outside it isn't white or black. it is not there. It doesn't exist. You can't describe what is outside the universe, because there is nothing there. It is impossible to fully comprehend the idea of nothing.

---

That's a good point. So in essence, it's like where your thoughts and all the processes were before you were born - there was "nothing".

^

yeah

Oh, god, help the children.

Space is not a thing, therefore a thing cannot be after space. The elements of a thing are not things, and thus not things of which they are elements.

Beyond space is an infinite "plane" in 12 dimensions. It is infinite, but not physical. Our universe has a width of about 90 billion light years (the current estimate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Beyond space is an infinite "plane" in 12 dimensions. It is infinite, but not physical. Our universe has a width of about 90 billion light years (the current estimate)

---

And I thought the original post was non-sense. Silly me. I would consider myself completly retarded if I said two dimensions were really 12. I really would. Just like Einstein said 2 were really 3. I would consider myself mathematically incompetent.

Do we name an abstraction? Or does the name create one? What is the difference between claiming 12 dimensions, and a witch doctor thinking words are magic?

Philosopher, do you need a time out? Being rude and condescending such as you are so tactlessly illustrating and scaring newbs away is going to land you with some infractions.

If thinking is being rude, then by all means give me a time out. But humoring a person when they are out of their mind is not helping anyone. So take your threats and shove them. You don't humor abberant thought processes.

And since I am provably in the right, it is you who are being rude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

If thinking is being rude, then by all means give me a time out.

---

For someone who so praises himself for being a self-proclaimed 'master of dialect,' you really don't know a thing about communication.

There are a multitude of ways to convey a point. Thinking someone is wrong and conveying to them that they are basically an idiot for thinking the way they do are two completely different things. If you - in all of your years of studying language and philosophy - have yet to understand this, then all of your pontificating on this forum has been for not.

If you believe someone to be incorrect about something, help them. It is not (in any way, shape or form) necessary to ridicule them, and profess to the world - in such a grandiose fashion - your apparent belief that they are below your intelligence level.

We expect even the youngest and least-educated members of this community to follow the same standard. If you can't adhere to it (simply out of mutual respect for one another), then you will be unwelcome in this community.

I will be honest; I think you have a lot to offer this community (in your round-about way), but if you can't learn to temper your responses - while still making your initial point - then you are simply someone we won't want around for very long. Believe me; I'd like to be diplomatic about this, but I already have a vague assumption of what your response might be, so the chips can fall where they may.

You can put all the intentions and inflections in my words you want. You can set yourself up as the master of etiquette, I don't give a damn. But I will tell you the same thing, take the words at their face value, and groom your ego at your own expense. I don't give a damn about your threats.

Who am I in the first place to be here ranting about basic principles, basic concepts when they should be a fundamental part of education? They are not because the world is composed of idiots. Quit flattering yourself that you are more than that and you might just shut up and think about how you think and what you think about.

The universe is fractals. A snowflake.. a braincell, a plant..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

nono, don't i personally have no idea why that post was made in the first place :D

the same thing happened in the religion boards when someone said you aren't supposed to capitalize the word 'atheist' and the whole argument broke out :cackle:

---

And it's still going LMFAO :lol:

Phil, you're really starting to crack me up now. It's hilarious to watch someone's response who you reply to, who has never seen you post. You probably need to chill out a bit though. Why don't you write a thread about what you talk about in all your posts instead of just complaining about how no one is knowledgable on it and how the schools don't teach it. Teach it yourself.

Anyway, Phil is correct. Space is no thing. And you cannot say what is beyond no thing. Because you're talking about nothing.

You probably would have avoided this LxANN by just saying universe instead of space, but it's not your fault of course.

You should also think about this from our perspective. When we look up at the sky at night we see blackness. Shouldn't we see nothing? Just emptiness? Even though that's hard to imagine or maybe impossible. The universe bends around apparently. Which is why we see blackness because the light is obviously bending too. So I don't think we could figure out what's beyond it because of the matter all bending around. Which means we would just go around too.

However, maths tells us what ninja is talking about. But we still don't understand it fully yet and it's just a theory. Keep dreaming. That's what I do, I just imagine. And it blows my mind.

There was a thread about this a while ago I think.

You learn a great deal about a person when you watch them step into what looks like dew, but is really a pond. How a person reacts gives one a ton of information on a person.

For example, does one call themselves an idiot, or do they curse the pond? I curse myself out constantly, I am not really that bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You learn a great deal about a person when you watch them step into what looks like dew, but is really a pond.

---

I dog sitted a dog once that did that.

I once had two dogs, both would dive for cashews. Many humans refuse to take the pluge for things vastly more important.

WTF!!?? lol ahha

Yes you are right though.

A very wise man once said, judge not by appearance but by righteous judgment, but what do we practice? It is not what you say, but how you say it. That is because, people don't give a damn about truth at all. It is one of the very first tests that Scripture puts the reader through. Do we think in accordance with meaning, or respond to cues as to emotional inflection we imagine may or may not be there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I once had two dogs, both would dive for cashews. Many humans refuse to take the pluge for things vastly more important.

---

What could possibly be more important that enjoying the sound of your own voice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

What could possibly be more important that enjoying the sound of your own voice?

---

Listening to the waves between your ears.

How is that any different?

That is the ultimate question.

No, it isn't.

How is it any more relevant?

Perception determines conception, conception determines will. Now you can say the same thing as we learn by experience, or you can say that names are conventional, or you can say The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are One, Or you can say, seeing is believing, Or you can say predication is the inverse function of abstraction, Or you can say, I will believe it when I see it.

All of these and more rest upon the same truth, what truth really is. So, it does not matter if you learn truth through the contemplation of the Universe or of your Navel-- its all the same.

And Greeny is only exersizing one of the greatest human perspectives of all, the ability to laugh at ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

And I thought the original post was non-sense. Silly me. I would consider myself completly retarded if I said two dimensions were really 12. I really would. Just like Einstein said 2 were really 3. I would consider myself mathematically incompetent.

---

How was my post nonsense? It was a brief overview of M-Theory, which is the dominate theory in physics right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How was my post nonsense? It was a brief overview of M-Theory, which is the dominate theory in physics right now.

---

I am not really interested in where non-sense comes from.

In order to use numbers, even for counting, you have a defined unit. The unit comes frirst, it is not abstracted from the sum of units. But you probably don't get that either.

You cannot simply toss out a number and call it a dimension--contrary to anyone's theory--you have violated the original convention of names, violated the foundation of logic.

Do you also believe in Transfinite Numbers? A number is no more than a name constructed via an ordered naming convention. And just like a string of letters is not a name, prior to the convention of names, neither is a number any more than a digit until the convention has been satisfied.

UGH

a thread that really interests me and you ruin it by talking about crap -.- thank you :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

UGH

a thread that really interests me and you ruin it by talking about crap -.- thank you :mad:

---

Not every pot contins gold.

this one did, but someone stole it from me :D

There is a principle for any logic or grammar system, There is no use of symbols, words, names that violate the original naming convention that is valid, and if one does not have a convention for these so called terms, they start speaking non-sense from the get go.

This principle has not been recognized for a very long time.

What?? How is this related to anything i said in this topic????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

What?? How is this related to anything i said in this topic????

---

I see you are still pondering the mystery of one hand clapping.

Quote:

---

To strike the palms of the hands together with a sudden explosive sound, as in applauding.

---

one hand clapping doesn't make sense. The definition of clapping requires 2 hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

one hand clapping doesn't make sense. The definition of clapping requires 2 hands.

---

And a conversation does not make sense when you only consider what you said.

i read everyones posts on this thread, and considered them as well. I was merely stating your analogy made no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

i read everyones posts on this thread, and considered them as well. I was merely stating your analogy made no sense.

---

Do you think I somehow own the principles of grammar? Confucius, Plato, Euclid, Christ, there were a great many people before me.

Do you think I coined the phrase "Well defined terms." and then ignored it?

You can fault me, many times over, but you still have not faulted the facts.

You act like you own the principles of grammar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

You act like you own the principles of grammar.

---

Really? Then use what I own to think with.

I use grammar on assignments in SCHOOL! getting 90s in english class...

This is an online forum board.... no one cares about grammar on forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

I use grammar on assignments in SCHOOL! getting 90s in english class...

This is an online forum board.... no one cares about grammar on forums

---

Really, I don't think I ever passed an grammar class in my life. Lucky you.

why thank you! :D

I didn't expect this forum to turn into such a conversation.
I just hate how my incorrect grammar has became such a huge deal, when I am quite sure if one has a mind they should understand what I am trying to say in the first post.
And to Mr Phil Sir, I'm going to be honest, I sure haven't learned or was ever told that "space" isn't a "thing". My sincere apologizes.
But it would have been much better presented on your part if you weren't so unreasonably critical about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

There are three primitive categories of names, The names of things, and the names of the two elements of a thing. We abstract these elements. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot abstract from an element, and thus, one cannot predicate of it.

---

This is called being a pretentious douche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

I didn't expect this forum to turn into such a conversation.
I just hate how my incorrect grammar has became such a huge deal, when I am quite sure if one has a mind they should understand what I am trying to say in the first post.
And to Mr Phil Sir, I'm going to be honest, I sure haven't learned or was ever told that "space" isn't a "thing". My sincere apologizes.
But it would have been much better presented on your part if you weren't so unreasonably critical about it.

---

I just stated simple facts. I did not do it in a fit of histaria. Nor did I simply call people names while saying absolutly nothing, like the genius below you.

What you read into, is your own affair, but please, don't complain that others have done to you what you only did to yourself.

The fact that you like uniformative name callers is commensurate with your whole reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

I'd like to introduce this thread for anyone to give any ideas on what is beyond outer space, how far does it go, what its made of, etc.

I've thought about it and if you look at the way the worlds features are made, mostly, they are individual cells combined with other cells that make up eventually form a living object. We are made of millions and millions of cells.

But what if the universe works the same way? It has been proven that we are within a spiral galaxy, and there is more than just our galaxy. What if all these galaxies around us combine to make this huge galaxy called the Super galaxy, and all the Super galaxies combine to make a Mega galaxy? And it just keeps continuing. Is that possible? There can be so any ways to look at it, the thing that is providing so much thought of it is we don't know everything that's out there, yet.

If anyone has ever thought about this, or anything closely related please feel free to share your theories :)

---

Awesome question, I've tried to imagine what could be beyond the boundaries of space we can see too. Well, your guesses were very close, galaxies, like cells, do form an emergent structure, they are called clusters. Galaxy clusters form super clusters and super clusters may form structures called filaments or "walls" spanning a billion light years across. What is beyond the space we know? The answer is we don't know lol. It's been speculated that our universe might be curved so that, like a globe, we loop back around to our original spot eventually, but we observe that our universe is probably flat and is accelerating from the "big bang". Theory aside, we honestly don't know how far out space goes beyond what we can see (about 13 billion light years away), if it is a smaller cell of a bigger pattern or if it is everything that is. If it is everything then the laws of physics and what stuff is made of looks like they'll be the same everywhere no matter how big it is, but if it is a closed system with an "outside" than our only tool for speculation is our imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

There are three primitive categories of names, The names of things, and the names of the two elements of a thing. We abstract these elements. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot abstract from an element, and thus, one cannot predicate of it.

---

lol... All I can say is... I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. Stifling a brilliant curiosity with a bunch of literal non-sense, why did anyone like this?

I know now I was incorrect, thank you for vividly stating that.
But please, lets conclude the unnecessary arguing.

Wayf. I imagine that unlike you, there are some who actually understand the poverty of our educational systems--when one has to live with the product of same.

I'm no scientist yet, Sir. I wasn't aware of what you are targeting me for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I just stated simple facts. I did not do it in a fit of histaria. Nor did I simply call people names while saying absolutly nothing, like the genius below you.

What you read into, is your own affair, but please, don't complain that others have done to you what you only did to yourself.

The fact that you like uniformative name callers is commensurate with your whole reaction.

---

This is called an extension of the douchery.

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

---

herein lies the point I'm making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

---

Well then, Perhaps you ought to study Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, instead of perhaps reading them and letting the words just float over your eyes. There is a real understanding there, and frankly, right in my sig is a link to a fuller explaination, if you can read. If not, most is in audioibook form.

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

I'm absolutely sure that Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid all asked the same question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I'm absolutely sure that Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid all asked the same question.

---

I have dedicated thousands of hours creating free educational material, I am glad to see that you at least lend your mouth to moving air.

stop this argument :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well then, Perhaps you ought to study Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, instead of perhaps reading them and letting the words just float over your eyes. There is a real understanding there, and frankly, right in my sig is a link to a fuller explaination, if you can read. If not, most is in audioibook form.

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

---

Well, it is someone's choice if they are interested in learning about Plato, Euclid, etc. But education does not preclude intelligence, and conceptual thinking has its limits that get in the way of true understanding. While conceptual thinking can be a tool, it can also cause great harm to oneself. If someone chooses to pursue their own interests instead of yours, that does not mean that you are smarter or wiser than them. If your audiobooks and writings are anything like they are on this forum, nobody will be interested. You may understand what you are talking about, but you are not a good teacher.

Quote:

---

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

---

Take your own advice. Most every post you make in every thread is this same whining about stuff that only you care about. And you whine that nobody else cares about it and that nobody else understands it. I read a few interesting posts you made, but they were still off-topic. Why don't you start your own thread on Plato, etc. And start off by defining "predicate", "first principle", etc. And let's see who is interested in responding and asking questions? I am only interested in these people for the contributions they made to geometry and music. I think that they were intelligent men, but not very wise. I think that Socrates was the wise one.

Back on topic:

What is beyond space? Either more space or it is a sphere in a higher dimension.

Quote:

---

What is beyond space? Either more space or it is a sphere in a higher dimension.

---

What does that mean?

like an expanding bubble. But space is just the surface of the bubble, not the contents of the bubble. If we bump this up a dimension so that the surface of the bubble is three dimensional then the depth would be fourth dimensional. If we bump it up dimensions so the surface is 4th dimensional then the depth would represent the 5th dimension.
Anyway, I am not claiming this is true or anything, it is just a way that I can imagine it. Of course then we have the same problem in the higher dimension: "What is beyond space?" if we are talking about 4th or 5th dimensional space.

You speak bravely, I was born with a very high IQ, and I have spent decades in their study, however, I would not imagine that I studied to any purpose if I used language the way you just did.

A very high IQ compared to what? To aardvarks or to other humans? An advanced alien life form who is capaple of interstellar travel would laugh at your pride of your IQ. Did you take an IQ test when you were born? If your IQ is so high then why can't you stay on topic? I have been tested to have a high IQ as well, and I have studied for decades also but I don't let it get to my head. I know enough to know that I know very little. In fact, I think that there is no unit of intelligence to measure and that these IQ tests are biased. Intelligence is the ability to imagine and adapt. Not to understand philosophy. Philosophy =/= truth either. Philosophy is a fun distraction or diversion that gives the illusion of real knowledge. So you value your IQ and the concepts that you studied, but you have too much pride in that and are basically trolling. Please let your next post be on topic or else start your own thread. Or say what you have to say once, then post it in the next thread. You could even make a form letter type of post that is the same for every thread. It could go like this: "How appalling your understanding of basic principles is. One cannot predicate on first principles. Plato taught this ages ago. Grammar is the most important thing and your disregard for it disgusts me. Even Einstein didn't know about grammar." You could just put it in your signature. On your thread that you start, you could also start by describing what you mean by grammar. Because you obviously don't mean about verb conjugation, prepositions, subject, predicate, transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, past participles, etc... So use your own thread to make yourself understood.

So you prefer rants to reason, how special. I will say this, they do take considerably less work.

Thank you to all on topic.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Thank you to all on topic.
:)

---

What I have said, I said because you, and I and everyone are simply the results of a mind. We all have the same definition. Being the last to evolve and having the longest maturation period of any other environmental acquisition system of this body we are part of means that we take a great deal of time learning--be that as it may, self-realization is not achieved by being more concerned with trivialities of protocol, or custom, but in learning what you are and why you are. It is the only way to come alive.

Everything we do, as us, what we are, is done through the artifice of language. It is not the cloths we wear, nor the friends we have, but in what we understand, have taken the time to abstract and use, for very specific reasons. Language, judgment, that is what we use and that is what we do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What I have said, I said because you, and I and everyone are simply the results of a mind. We all have the same definition. Being the last to evolve and having the longest maturation period of any other environmental acquisition system of this body we are part of means that we take a great deal of time learning--be that as it may, self-realization is not achieved by being more concerned with trivialities of protocol, or custom, but in learning what you are and why you are. It is the only way to come alive.

---

So what are you saying I am? I'm 16, and you expect of me what I cannot help. If I could learn all the knowledge at this moment in my life, I surely would love to, I care about my knowledge and I would love to get far in life because of it. I feel a higher level of maturity for my age rather than the average level of maturity of others within my age group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

So what are you saying I am? I'm 16, and you expect of me what I cannot help. If I could learn all the knowledge at this moment in my life, I surely would love to, I care about my knowledge and I would love to get far in life because of it. I feel a higher level of maturity for my age rather than the average level of maturity of others within my age group.

---

I am not talking knowledge, I am talking what you do with it and how you do it. Langauge. If you search the Net for language theory, you will find at least a half dozen theories, every one of them wrong. Plato had it right, Aristotle got part of it right. Part of it right in the Elements. It is not taught yet, and all I have done is brief skecthes. I expected nothing from you but a civil response.

And what your definition of a civil response be on my part?
I'm trying to relate to your language, since it seems to be so correct.
I will look into Plato, and Aristotle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

like an expanding bubble. But space is just the surface of the bubble, not the contents of the bubble. If we bump this up a dimension so that the surface of the bubble is three dimensional then the depth would be fourth dimensional. If we bump it up dimensions so the surface is 4th dimensional then the depth would represent the 5th dimension.
Anyway, I am not claiming this is true or anything, it is just a way that I can imagine it. Of course then we have the same problem in the higher dimension: "What is beyond space?" if we are talking about 4th or 5th dimensional space.

---

Very well put. I've thought about this too though the concept of more "dimensions" have been becoming more and more concerning to me, especially considering time.

LxAnn: Well, I don't like my head ripped off and shoved up my ass, it tends to tear the toilet paper.

If the ideas were easy, education today would be completely differnt. In fact, human psychology would be different. Language and psychology walk hand in hand.

Phil:
I didn't mean for you to get upset, I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Phil:
I didn't mean for you to get upset, I'm sorry.

---

I am not upset, as I said, I am sad and frustrated. There are ideas awaiting man, then things will get better.

Can you explain to me some ideas, so maybe I can make an effort to look into them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Can you explain to me some ideas, so maybe I can make an effort to look into the?

---

http://www.archive.org/download/Lang...Experience.pdf
Or follow my link for a whole bunch of audiobooks.

Thank you. I will start reading.

Thank you for listening.

Lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I am not upset, as I said, I am sad and frustrated.

---

up·set /ˌəpˈset/
Noun: A state of being unhappy, disappointed, or worried.

I think.... yes, I think he just predicated a first principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franklin

up·set /ˌəpˈset/
Noun: A state of being unhappy, disappointed, or worried.

---

I don't see "sad" or "frustrated"...

:cookiemonster:

Probably because unhappy is a synonym for sad.

He did predicate a first principle! Did you see that grammar?! Lol. It just doesn't make sense!

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/picko...ron-galaxy.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I think.... yes, I think he just predicated a first principle.

---

What does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/picko...ron-galaxy.jpg

---

Lol, that's been posted before, in the thread I was talking about.

I'm not sure I agree with it. It is only a computer simulation. I mean, look at the other images taken from infrared satellite telescopes etc. And also it isn't really that similar.

It really wouldn't have to be similar.
If atoms come together to create consciousness, I don't see any reason why the universe wouldn't or couldn't come together to create more consciousness.

I can already tell that this thread is going to make me mad.
Too many people are going to be saying:
Space is space and planets are planets and this is the way things are. Nothing exists that science doesn't already explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

It really wouldn't have to be similar.
If atoms come together to create consciousness, I don't see any reason why the universe wouldn't or couldn't come together to create more consciousness.

---

Because that makes no sense whatsoever?
Atoms don't make consciousness by coming together. They form cells which "come together", if you like, to create consciousness.
What exactly are you proposing the universe comes together with?
It's equivalent to saying a dog comes together and creates a cat. How can something come together with itself?
And how could several things, such as galaxies, which have nothing resembling any sort of connection create anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

I can already tell that this thread is going to make me mad.
Too many people are going to be saying:
Space is space and planets are planets and this is the way things are. Nothing exists that science doesn't already explain.

---

I don't think any body with any understanding of science at all thinks that it explains everything. Eventually it probably will, but not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Because that makes no sense whatsoever?
Atoms don't make consciousness by coming together. They form cells which "come together"

---

That's what I said. Atoms come together to make consciousness. So do cells. Also, atoms come together to make cells. Just because words come together to make sentences doesn't mean that letters don't come together to make sentences.
Seriously, I'm tired of all of these three dimensional arguments. What exactly am I proposing the universe comes together with? Itself. It doesn't make sense if you are thinking three dimensionally. I could explain it to you, if you wanted to hear it, but it's easier to criticize, so you decided to do that instead.

I've given up, because it's like trying to explain animation to a cartoon character. Each time I open my mouth I am ridiculed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

It's equivalent to saying a dog comes together and creates a cat.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

How can something come together with itself?

---

Eight dimensionally. Although it's still not going to make sense to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

And how could several things, such as galaxies, which I AM ASSUMING don't have any sort of connection create anything else?

---

...Magic. It's magic. (or gravity)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't think any body with any understanding of science at all thinks that it explains everything. Eventually it probably will, but not now.

---

There is a lot we don't know. That's no reason not to criticize ideas before we've actually heard them in their entirety, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

UGH

a thread that really interests me and you ruin it by talking about crap -.- thank you :mad:

---

Haha. If you think this is crap, your real life name must be something simple like "Thud" or "Oof".

xD

I swear, the next thread that turns into a pissing match about how awesome you are at grammar is gonna get peed on by something that pees a lot. I'll make it so.

As the composer of this thread, I want to give out my sincere apologizes for the disagreements, and off topic remarks.
Thank you to all still on topic, and making efforts to work together to create great theories about the universe. <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

That's what I said. Atoms come together to make consciousness. So do cells. Also, atoms come together to make cells. Just because words come together to make sentences doesn't mean that letters don't come together to make sentences.
Seriously, I'm tired of all of these three dimensional arguments. What exactly am I proposing the universe comes together with? Itself. It doesn't make sense if you are thinking three dimensionally. I could explain it to you, if you wanted to hear it, but it's easier to criticize, so you decided to do that instead.

I've given up, because it's like trying to explain animation to a cartoon character. Each time I open my mouth I am ridiculed.


No.

Eight dimensionally. Although it's still not going to make sense to you.

...Magic. It's magic. (or gravity)

There is a lot we don't know. That's no reason not to criticize ideas before we've actually heard them in their entirety, though.

---

You know, one of the symptoms of Schizophrenia is being unable to keep track of a train of thought.

That sentence should suffice as a refutation of your post, but it doesn't really satisfy my desire to argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

That's what I said. Atoms come together to make consciousness. So do cells. Also, atoms come together to make cells.

---

So, you're not even saying that atoms come together AS cells, which come together to create consciousness. That would have been the rational way out of your current state of nonsense. But you're just saying atoms come together to create consciousness....
Show me anything on Earth that has no brain but is conscious.
Is oxygen conscious? That's just a bunch of atoms you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

Just because words come together to make sentences doesn't mean that letters don't come together to make sentences.

---

Letters don't come together to make sentences. You can't just throw them around willy-nilly and except them to form a sentence.
They have to be structured first in to words, then the words can be structured in to sentences. Thanks for finding an analogy which furthers my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

What exactly am I proposing the universe comes together with? Itself. It doesn't make sense if you are thinking three dimensionally. I could explain it to you, if you wanted to hear it, but it's easier to criticize, so you decided to do that instead.

---

NICE try! I'm impressed, my grade 1 teacher tried to pull that same one on me, I didn't fall for it then either though.
EXPLAIN IT THEN. If someone doesn't agree with your point of view you are supposed to explain it more clearly, relating to their criticisms. You don't just argue their points with 0 more information than you had in your last pile of balderdash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

I've given up, because it's like trying to explain animation to a cartoon character. Each time I open my mouth I am ridiculed.

---

See? This is what I'm talking about. How does this make any sense at all to you?
Since when have cartoon characters constantly ridiculed someone, or another character?
It would make sense if it was a well known fact that cartoons consist of characters just constantly berating other characters. But they don't, so that sentence makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

Eight dimensionally. Although it's still not going to make sense to you.

---

Gee, oh gee oh gee oh gee. I'm talking to a genius, sorry if you're not, but I'm just assuming you are since you understand what happens in the 8th dimension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

...Magic. It's magic. (or gravity)

---

Woah, woah dude....

Yeah coz I didn't think of that at all when I was responding to your previous post.
Gravity doesn't reach across galaxies. And it's a force which pulls one object towards another, not an electrical pulse sending information between objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

There is a lot we don't know. That's no reason not to criticize ideas before we've actually heard them in their entirety, though.

---

This is what I'm talking about also.
How do these two sentences relate in your head?
What does not knowing everything have to do with ciritcising an idea before we hear it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Show me anything on Earth that has no brain but is conscious.

---

Well it depends on how you define conscious. If you mean conscious as in an that organism reacts to its environment then plants are conscious and do not possess a brain.

You're correct.
If you define consciousness as sand being blown in the wind then sandstorms are conscious.

ALTERNATIVELY

Who the fuck describes consciousness as an organism reacting to the environment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

You're correct.
If you define consciousness as sand being blown in the wind then sandstorms are consciousness.

ALTERNATIVELY

Who the fuck describes consciousness as an organism reacting to the environment?

---

You didn't use the word consciousness you said "conscious" so I responded accordingly.

I guess the definition of consciousness is ambiguous but Ill give it a crack, lets just say it is the possibility of subjective experience. If a plant experiences subjective experience and a general awareness(that is a mouthful) how would we know? Plants are aware enough to react to their environment but do they have feeling or experience qualia? I have no clue :)

Im just messing around with you and not necessarily arguing for the conscious status of plants but I think it does pose an interesting question pertaining to how we define consciousness and acknowledge the consciousness of other species.

How would you define consciousness Tommo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

like an expanding bubble. But space is just the surface of the bubble, not the contents of the bubble. If we bump this up a dimension so that the surface of the bubble is three dimensional then the depth would be fourth dimensional. If we bump it up dimensions so the surface is 4th dimensional then the depth would represent the 5th dimension.
Anyway, I am not claiming this is true or anything, it is just a way that I can imagine it. Of course then we have the same problem in the higher dimension: "What is beyond space?" if we are talking about 4th or 5th dimensional space.

---

http://classic-icon.com/Animated-Gif-Dump/ZjZ3x.gif

Thats what I feel like on Dimitri.

Oh no, I'm slowly falling towards my right. D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Show me anything on Earth that has no brain but is conscious.

---

Corals, clams, plants, etc.

Tommo ease off please. You aren't even giving a chance to consider another point of view. You don't have to agree, but at least listen and consider. There is no adequate definition of consciousness. Consciousness is a mystery even to scientists, even more so than black holes. The view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption. The view that it doesn't come from the brain is also an assumption. Science has not isolated, measured, or even observed consciousness. It observes the affects of consciousness and infers its existence. It would be silly to deny the existence of consciousness since we all experience it. But IF we were totally objective, we could postulate that there is no such thing as consciousness, just a mechanical set of reactions and automatic programmed responses. Since it is such a mystery, and the limits of science being objective and limited to the material world, we are looking for material causes for consciousness. The brain is an obvious place to start. But each cell has demonstrated the qualities of consciousness in laboratories.

So, in the absence of any real proof we are able to continue theorizing and even philosophizing about consciousness. And the great thing about consciousness is that the best way to observe it firsthand is to observe one's own consciousness directly. My theory is that all matter has a degree of consciousness. Every particle has a small degree of consciousness. Just as life started out with simple single cells and then organized into more complicated multicellular beings, so as particles and atoms come together and allow more complicated consciousness. The consciousness of an O2 molecule is negligible compared to us.

Consciousness is not synonymous with the mind, however. My theory is that the brain is like a radio receiver and the mind is like radio waves flying through the air. The mind with its thoughts and intentions exist not in the brain, but it is the brain that receives them and makes them usable and known. I have spoken to some scientists who think that this is possible, yet they say that the whole nervous system would have to be part of the receiver or antenna. Also this happens to be the Dzogchen Buddhist (or Bon) view according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, AKA Bardo Thodol. According to those teachings, at death we lose our gross consciousness that we are familiar with when our brain dies. Then we black out. Then we awake to the ambient subtle consciousness that exists everywhere.

The picture I posted was just two pictures, one a few neurons, and another, the Universe. I made no commentary. The picture said it all. I am not claiming that the Universe is a brain or anything. I just like the picture and think that it is remarkable. There is nothing to agree with or disagree with, but we can wonder. If the Universe is conscious, and I think that it is, then we can wonder what is the Universe conscious of? Only itself, or is there something beyond the Universe? Are there other Universes? This might be where Phil or Caprisun say that the words are wrong. Because Uni- means one. I would be contradicing myself if I said that there is more than one Universe. However, this is just semantics and not reality. We must not confuse our language (which is only made up of symbols) with reality itself. A word is a symbol for the thing it represents, not the thing itself.

In theoretical physics they have come up with a word called Metaverse. The metaverse is like a huge high dimensional universe that all these smaller individual universes abide within. If these Universes all abide in a higher space they possibly possibly might be similar to neurons or cells. Theoretically, each Universe has its own laws of physics. That COULD be similar to how each type of cell has its own function in a greater organism. This is all speculation, I know, but so is any argument against it until further empirical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

You didn't use the word consciousness you said "conscious" so I responded accordingly.

I guess the definition of consciousness is ambiguous but Ill give it a crack, lets just say it is the possibility of subjective experience. If a plant experiences subjective experience and a general awareness(that is a mouthful) how would we know? Plants are aware enough to react to their environment but do they have feeling or experience qualia? I have no clue

Im just messing around with you and not necessarily arguing for the conscious status of plants but I think it does pose an interesting question pertaining to how we define consciousness and acknowledge the consciousness of other species.

How would you define consciousness Tommo?

---

WHHHHATTTTTTTTTT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!!!!!!!111!!!11! !!ONEONEEEEEE!!!!!?

That doesn't make any sense. How would swapping conscious for consciousness change anything?

Just pretend I said conscious in my response to you instead of consciousness. Reply again please.

Panexperientialism (belief that all matter is conscious) is a pretty interesting conclusion, the philosopher A.N Whitehead(who I admire very much) was a proponent of this idea. Im not sure if I would agree with the statement "the view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption" I would say it is more than an assumption but you are right consciousness has eluded empirical observation and continues to be a mystery.

I would ask if consciousness is not located or associated with the brain, then why does a person who has a deteriorated brain (from a disease like Alzheimers or physical brain damage) experience a dysfunction in mental capability? If someones arm is cut off or hair is cut off (both contain human cells) there is no apparent mental disruption.

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

conscious is an adjective, consciousness is a noun.

A brain damaged person has an impaired mind, but his consciousness is the same. Even a retard is just as conscious as we are, even a cat is just as conscious as we are, a snail is also. But we all have different mental abilities. Please understand the distinction between consciousness and mental function. Consciousness is not the ability to reason, or to conceptualize or think or even to cognize. Consciousness is kind of like light. It is the medium of the mind. It is the light in the eyes. The mind is like a tool. You can have a great brain and a highly developed intellect and mental function, but if you are asleep it is in the dark. Yes, the brain is related to the mind, although I believe they are different like I said in my last post. But I believe all matter is conscious. I never heard of Panexperientialism. I like that word. It reminds me of Panentheism, which I also agree with. Einstein was a pantheist, but I am a panentheist. Panexperientialism fits with both of those beliefs. Thanks for teaching me a word for the concept, and to show me that I am not the only one who ever thought of this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is no adequate definition of consciousness.

---

Oh really? Coz I can find at least 2 in any dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But each cell has demonstrated the qualities of consciousness in laboratories.

---

Sometimes I think you're smarter than the average nutjob on here. Then I see you write things like this.
When? When has this happened? In some homeopathic quack jobs basement? Like that dude with dementia who tried to say that water has a memory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

My theory

---

No. Your half-hearted idea. A theory requires some proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Consciousness is not synonymous with the mind, however. My theory is that the brain is like a radio receiver and the mind is like radio waves flying through the air. The mind with its thoughts and intentions exist not in the brain, but it is the brain that receives them and makes them usable and known. I have spoken to some scientists

---

Those quack jobs again? Simply saying "scientists" generally gives an air of pseudo scientific bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

who think that this is possible, yet they say that the whole nervous system would have to be part of the receiver or antenna. Also this happens to be the Dzogchen Buddhist (or Bon) view according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, AKA Bardo Thodol. According to those teachings, at death we lose our gross consciousness that we are familiar with when our brain dies. Then we black out. Then we awake to the ambient subtle consciousness that exists everywhere.

---

Oh! Yep, there it is....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The picture I posted was just two pictures, one a few neurons, and another, the Universe. I made no commentary. The picture said it all.

---

No, it is obvious what your point was. As they say, a picture says a thousand words. Well, who presents the picture and it what context also says 1000 words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If the Universe is conscious, and I think that it is, then we can wonder what is the Universe conscious of? Only itself, or is there something beyond the Universe?

---

What is the point of this? I could think that my pen is a nuclear bomb and then wonder what would happen if I dropped it on your head. But it's a futile thing to ponder because my pen is not a nuclear bomb and all the evidence points to that fact.
I seem to be noticing a pattern here.

You and stormcrow have just both committed several logical fallacies. Fallacy of division, fallacy of many questions, pathetic fallacy and some others I can't remember the names of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

In theoretical physics they have come up with a word called Metaverse. The metaverse is like a huge high dimensional universe that all these smaller individual universes abide within. If these Universes all abide in a higher space they possibly possibly might be similar to neurons or cells.

---

This is what I'm talking about. Why? Just.... why? Why would you draw that conclusion????

--------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

---

No, no.... You don't do that. Carl Sagan was a genius. Do not butcher his quotes.
Do you understand what you just said there?

If the universe is conscious.
We are it's way of knowing itself.

If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself? (I'm not arguing that the universe produced us to be conscious, that would almost require conscious thought, so don't even try that one. I'm arguing about the way you distorted that quote to gibberish.)

What Carl Sagan was saying was "We are the universes way of knowing itself" because we are the conscious part of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

---

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and make up a random meaning to prove a point. As I stated in my previous post.

Consciousness is the state of being conscious, or is used to say that something is conscious. Yes. How do you conclude from that that they are not the same thing?
Consciousness = being conscious. You just change the word in different contexts, or depending on the sentence.
"Consciousness is cool"
"That fact that I am conscious is cool"

"That guy is in a state of consciousness"
"That guy is conscious"

Same thing.

Whatever, you described being conscious as interacting with the environment. Which is fucking ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Panexperientialism (belief that all matter is conscious) is a pretty interesting conclusion, the philosopher A.N Whitehead(who I admire very much) was a proponent of this idea. Im not sure if I would agree with the statement "the view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption" I would say it is more than an assumption but you are right consciousness has eluded empirical observation and continues to be a mystery.

I would ask if consciousness is not located or associated with the brain, then why does a person who has a deteriorated brain (from a disease like Alzheimers or physical brain damage) experience a dysfunction in mental capability? If someones arm is cut off or hair is cut off (both contain human cells) there is no apparent mental disruption.

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

---

<3 just because you quoted Carl Sagan. I definitely lean on brain/body = consciousness, vase or two faces, are you looking at it (brain) or are you it (consciousness). Assuming the overwhelming possibility that life is a natural emergent process of chemistry, I believe the universe is conscious because of us, we are the universe. That being said, Dannon's theory doesn't sound too far off, a hydrogen atom floating around in the air in front of you could just as easily be zooming around as a part of one of the brain process's that create you reading this. Psychology and Neurology has it's mysteries, who's to say consciousness is nothing but atoms and environment? Atoms have their mysteries too, open mindedness definitely fits here. I only base what I lean toward to be true on observation, mostly modern science, and it's no less awesome. Science points toward a unity that makes us inseparable parts of everything, an infinite point of energy gone crazy various and complex. According to stellar nucleosynthesis, you and everything you see was once a part of a star gone supernova. To quote one of my hero's Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

---

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I took every precaution to make sure that someone wouldn't respond with exactly what you responded with.

If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself? (I'm not arguing that the universe produced us to be conscious, that would almost require conscious thought, so don't even try that one. I'm arguing about the way you distorted that quote to gibberish.)


What Carl Sagan was saying was "We are the universes way of knowing itself" because we are the conscious part of the universe.

aka the Universe's consciousness, making for a conscious Universe.

Quote:

---

Oh really? Coz I can find at least 2 in any dictionary.

---

It amazes me that a conscious being needs a dictionary to believe he is conscious.

Quote:

---

No. Your half-hearted idea. A theory requires some proof.

---

It doesn't need proof unless I am a scientist trying to prove it to the world. I am not trying to prove it to anybody else or convert anybody. And remember two things: I am speaking in metaphors, and the reality is much more than I can imagine, let alone communicate. Of course my idea is half-hearted. This is an open discussion on a forum of people from all walks of life, not a science convention discussing only what has been proven.

Quote:

---

Those quack jobs again?

---

Friends of mine. And they are not quack jobs just because they listened to me and answered my questions.

Quote:

---

No, it is obvious what your point was. As they say, a picture says a thousand words. Well, who presents the picture and it what context also says 1000 words.

---

Honestly, my intention was that when I stumbled upon this picture, I wanted to share it, so I shared it on this thread because it seemed like the best place to. I didn't share it on my facebook, I chose to share it on dreamviews, on this site, because I thought it represented an idea that is on topic of this discussion.

Quote:

---

What is the point of this? I could think that my pen is a nuclear bomb and then wonder what would happen if I dropped it on your head. But it's a futile thing to ponder because my pen is not a nuclear bomb and all the evidence points to that fact.

---

Agreed, all evidence points to the fact that your pen is not a nuclear bomb. We have plenty of evidence of what a pen is, being a man-made creation and all. We are still trying to figure out the Universe, and probably will be for a long time. We don't even know enough about the brain, let alone the Universe.

Quote:

---

You and stormcrow have just both committed several logical fallacies. Fallacy of division, fallacy of many questions, pathetic fallacy and some others I can't remember the names of.

---

I know I committed many fallacies. I commit to lots of irrational and illogical things. I even commit rational and logical things also. I don't commit pathetic fallacies though, have you? I committed to a marriage once, which was also a fallacy. I committed to my friends and family. I committed to my music, which is definitely irrational. I committed to lucid dreaming, and I committed to love, the two most illogical and irrational states of being I know of.

Quote:

---

This is what I'm talking about. Why? Just.... why? Why would you draw that conclusion????

---

I drew no conclusions. This isn't a conclusion.

--------

Quote:

---

Carl Sagan was a genius.

---

<3

Quote:

---

"We are the universes way of knowing itself"

---

<3

Quote:

---

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and make up a random meaning to prove a point.

---

Quote:

---

Whatever, you described being conscious as interacting with the environment. Which is fucking ridiculous.

---

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and calling it fucking ridiculous to prove a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

aka the Universe's consciousness, making for a conscious Universe.

---

Yes. But only a part of it is conscious. Not the entire thing. Not every atom, as these two people are claiming.

Dannon said: "We don't even know enough about the brain, let alone the Universe."

True, if you define "the Universe" as just what the physical sciences seek to explain. I don't make the distinction though, the mysteries of the brain are the mysteries of the Universe to me lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

---

I believe that the Universe can know itself in more than one way. It can know itself as a cat, it can know itself as a star, it can know itself as a human. We are all the universe. We are all the Big Bang.

tommo said: "Yes. But only a part of it is conscious. Not the entire thing. Not every atom, as these two people are claiming."

I get what your saying, but if you think about it, without the inanimate stuff that makes our surroundings, there would be nothing to be conscious of, so it seems to be an intrinsic part. Everything's connected, so if every atom eventually connects to the brain and is a necessary part of consciousness, who's to say they're not a piece of it?

The brain is a necessary part of consciousness to be conscious the way a brain is. I think that just as life evolves, consciousness evolves. Consciousness was once inanimate matter. It evolved from pure energy, to particles, to atoms, to molecules, to organic molecules, to amino acids, to proteins, to DNA, etc. All as a symphony of the variety and diversity in which life is as an evolution of consciousness from pure energy to frontal lobe.

I even think that empty space is pure consciousness, but there is nothing to be conscious, or nothing to be conscious of. To be conscious of something takes a subject and an object. Without either only consciousness is left.

That red hurt my eyes. I'll see you in Kangaroo court.

Unnecessary Jeff.

Tommo,
I actually considered responding to your ridicule, to try to explain what I'm talking about.. how there just might be consciousness in ways that we aren't aware of, or whatever silly thing it was. Who knows what I was really trying to say, right?
You have already resorted to ad hominem insults. You have called me crazy. You have mocked my intelligence level. At the risk of sounding insulting myself I have to say that this is very childish and rude. You say that you have a desire to argue, and I think that is what this is all really about for you. You have splashed up big red letters and called us crazy for even considering possiblities that aren't written in a textbook. You have actually said that you consider debate and argument to be the same thing. They are not.
I'm not interested in arguing. I like exploring ideas and possibilities, and listening to other people's ideas and concepts.
So, I'm sorry. I'm not going to play your game. You can get angry and argue with someone else. I'm not interested in explaining myself to you, because I honestly do not believe you will listen.
I like this thread. I will continue to contribute to it and read other people's ideas, but I believe that devoting any more energy into trying to have a civil conversation with you will be wasted.
Have fun, kiddo.

You completely ignore the fact that I listen to reasonable arguments and have changed my view quite a few times when someone presents a logical point of view.

Why don't you just say that you really have no idea what you're talking about?
Why try to cover it up?
If you had a reasonable thing to say, you would say it.

Have fun, kiddo. ;)

Beyond space is the back of your head.

Time?;)

I ran into myself, out there. I told him there wasn't any out there, then I imploded.
This frightens me a little bit because I'm not sure which one of us survived.

Spoiler for who survived:

.