Thread: Human, but not nature

Very interesting topic Howetzer.

Although I am of course morally opposed to the fitter is better instinct, in my opinion, somewhere along the line, municiple Darwinism will triumph over our attempts to fight natural selection.

Originally posted by Pensive Patrick
Very interesting topic Howetzer.

Although I am of course morally opposed to the fitter is better instinct, in my opinion, somewhere along the line, municiple Darwinism will triumph over our attempts to fight natural selection.

Thank you. And I could not agree with you more!

I find it an oddity that you responded to this post because today -the same day you posted, I had your user name in my head. I often see who is registered and often a name sticks in my head and I repeat it all day. Cool!

[quote]

Thank you. And I could not agree with you more!

I find it an oddity that you responded to this post because today -the same day you posted, I had your user name in my head. I often see who is registered and often a name sticks in my head and I repeat it all day. Cool!

Wow... scary...

Originally posted by Pensive Patrick


Wow... scary...

Scary? I thought it was kind of cool
I have decided to log these type of incidents. They seem to often to be coincidence. But if I log them down I can maybe separate fact from fiction,
WE will see!

I don't believe you can separate humans and nature in any way at all

We are part of nature and therefore whatever we do is nature. If we use all the resources of the world and eventually die out in squalor, then that is nature. If we find a solution to that rather disconcerting outcome, then that is nature too. This aside, it is difficult to imagine a future society where basic human rights count for nothing.

Funny how we think we can somehow go beyond nature with our technologies. Aren't our technologies themselves part of nature?

At some point in our future we have to realize that our planet cannot sustain an equitable society for a race that is expanding in one end and the resources to retain these masses dwindle on the other. [/b]

This is a false presumption. It is only a theory, yet you state it as fact.

If you have some spare time, do some research on the history of the presumption that we are "running out of resources".

Humans themselves are resources - and resourceful. The Zero Sum Game is a fallacy - one that has been used time and again as an excuse for curtailing liberty.

Originally posted by pj

At some point in our future we have to realize that our planet cannot sustain an equitable society for a race that is expanding in one end and the resources to retain these masses dwindle on the other.

This is a false presumption. It is only a theory, yet you state it as fact.

If you have some spare time, do some research on the history of the presumption that we are "running out of resources".

Humans themselves are resources - and resourceful. The Zero Sum Game is a fallacy - one that has been used time and again as an excuse for curtailing liberty.[/b]

There are a limited supply of natural resources --PERIOD. Correct. That is fact.
There is a growing population. Correct.
What is the outcome of these facts.
Regardless of how creative we are the rain forests the oil reserves the fresh water etc will at some point be in jeopardy. You or I may not see it but how would it play out any other way?
Seriously. How?
The population will not quite growing and the resources will not quite diminishing.
Of coarse we will no doubt be resourceful. *Necessity is the mother of invention.

Originally posted by Crow
I don't believe you can separate humans and nature in any way at all * *

We are part of nature and therefore whatever we do is nature. If we use all the resources of the world and eventually die out in squalor, then that is nature. If we find a solution to that rather disconcerting outcome, then that is nature too. This aside, it is difficult to imagine a future society where basic human rights count for nothing.

Funny how we think we can somehow go beyond nature with our technologies. Aren't our technologies themselves part of nature?

For real?
There is a natural order of things. Our technology does not have to follow that path.
Maybe you are talking about the nature of "things" Like I talk about the nature of humanity. But that is not nature as in the natural process as mother nature would have it.

Ok, but how do we know what mother nature intended? What is a truly natural process? I think that there is only a natural order of things as defined by us. It fits in with our idea of being outside nature or in some way divine.

Perhaps mother nature intended for a species such as homo sapiens to multiply out of all proportion and wreck the environment? And in doing so, destroy its own future on earth. Perhaps this paves the way for all the future generations of exotic species that will develop over the next few hundred million years after inheriting the planet from us?

What is really outside nature? The human mind? Humans? Some things are clearly artificial (such as yoghurt pots) but does this make them beyond nature? If nature developed the human and then the human developed the yoghurt pot, although nature (the natural order) doesn't appear to be in control of the secondary development it must be part of the same process. Same goes for nuclear weapons and antibiotics. Other animals have technologies too and they're not considered to be beyond nature in any way.

Originally posted by Crow
Ok, but how do we know what mother nature intended? What is a truly natural process? I think that there is only a natural order of things as defined by us. It fits in with our idea of being outside nature or in some way divine.

Perhaps mother nature intended for a species such as homo sapiens to multiply out of all proportion and wreck the environment? And in doing so, destroy its own future on earth. Perhaps this paves the way for all the future generations of exotic species that will develop over the next few hundred million years after inheriting the planet from us?

What is really outside nature? The human mind? Humans? Some things are clearly artificial (such as yoghurt pots) but does this make them beyond nature? If nature developed the human and then the human developed the yoghurt pot, although nature (the natural order) doesn't appear to be in control of the secondary development it must be part of the same process. Same goes for nuclear weapons and antibiotics. Other animals have technologies too and they're not considered to be beyond nature in any way.

The only thing that defines nature is evolution , if something doesn't adapt of its own accord , and needs external input to be what it is , then its not natural . Just like this keyboard is not natural , the food i eat is processed and is un-natural , the music i listen to is produced electronically and is not natural . That is why western society has this feeling of isolation or feeling of being out of touch with the world . It just takes alot of thought to wake up to yourself and realise that is what you are thinking .

you say , how can we know what mother nature intended , but there is no mother nature , no set way nature intends things to be , simply a process of interaction on small and large scales which makes things how they are . Things naturally progress through evolution , whether it be natural selection of a species , or the moving of the tektonic plates that our continents sit on . It can all be seen as an evolution , or progression over time ( that is really all evolution is ).

I think there is a natural progression of things , I also think we as humans have the power to alter that natural progression . We can alter it for good or for bad . Right now we are on a collision course with self annihilation . It is inevitable as long as we consume oil , trees , water , infact all natural resources . There are ways around this , alternative thinking and self sustainable futures and if we have any ounce of care for countless generations to come we will act NOW to stop this self destruction of this vital resource we call earth . There is not much time , im talking hundreds of years , before the earth is wasted away from our wreckless wastage of resources . We need to think smart and lay the groundwork now for future generations . I hope many people also think this way , cos i would hate to see such a work of art as the human race fall by the wayside simply because it was too pigheaded to think less than 10 years into the future .

Darkmatic, I'm with you on the Save the Planet stuff, I really am. I think we should treasure this earth and do everything we can to protect the diversity of life that we have. I don't believe that in the process we should start denying basic human rights to certain classes of people though.

[/quote]The only thing that defines nature is evolution , if something doesn't adapt of its own accord , and needs external input to be what it is , then its not natural .[/quote]

One contentious point of this thread was that humans and/or their actions are somehow outside of nature. It is, of course, true that humans are altering the "natural progression of things", but that is not where my argument lies. It is more to do with the definition of nature itself. We're just getting caught up in semantics and definitions here, mixing up nature with natural, kinda missing the point I suppose. I just don't believe that the title of this thread can be true. Humans and their behaviour are nature, whether it follows your idea of a "natural progression" or not. If we are not an enactment of nature then what are we? And is it not "natural" for humans to invent a kettle when they want their water to boil quickly?

You see how our language can be so inadequate when discussing such things.

Darkmatic, I'm with you on the Save the Planet stuff, I really am. I think we should treasure this earth and do everything we can to protect the diversity of life that we have. I don't believe that in the process we should start denying basic human rights to certain classes of people though.

The only thing that defines nature is evolution , if something doesn't adapt of its own accord , and needs external input to be what it is , then its not natural .[/quote]

One contentious point of this thread was that humans and/or their actions are somehow outside of nature. It is, of course, true that humans are altering the "natural progression of things", but that is not where my argument lies. It is more to do with the definition of nature itself. We're just getting caught up in semantics and definitions here, mixing up nature with natural, kinda missing the point I suppose. I just don't believe that the title of this thread can be true. Humans and their behaviour are nature, whether it follows your idea of a "natural progression" or not. If we are not an enactment of nature then what are we? And is it not "natural" for humans to invent a kettle when they want their water to boil quickly?

You see how our language can be so inadequate when discussing such things.[/quote]

Sure , i see where your coming from , but you get to a point with that thinking , where is the line between natural and unatural ? Unless u define that line , u cant separate the two . Sure a kettle is useful , so is a gun in the right hands . But is a gun natural ? What im saying is sure we can make things which serve a purpose , but when those things we create get in the way of the natural progression of things , thats when it starts to become unnatural .

[quote]Regardless of how creative we are the rain forests the oil reserves the fresh water etc will at some point be in jeopardy. You or I may not see it but how would it play out any other way?
Seriously. How?
The population will not quite growing and the resources will not quite diminishing.
Of coarse we will no doubt be resourceful. *Necessity is the mother of invention.[/color]

How? Easy.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Nor is matter. The perception of "using resources" is only a perception, as their form is converted back and forth. Everything recycles... everything. The "peak oil" myth has been promoted since oil was discovered - yet there is a growing body of very convincing evidence that oil may be the result of a geological processs. Either way, we have KNOWN reserves that will last over 500 years at our current rate of increasing consumption. Nor are we running out of water... there is exactly as much water as there has ever been, barring the arrival of a comet or something that brings us more, (and probably kills us all at the same time.) Salt or polluted, there are ways of cleaning and desalinating, and new ways are constantly being developed. The simple act of freezing water, which occurs naturally, does both. Everything we eat, drink and breathe, build with and otherwise exploit is returned when we are done with it.

We swim in a vast sea of energy. We are only now beginning to wake to the reality of that - and the implications. If it were not so, we would all be at 0 Kelvin and not dong very much.

In terms of human life, the REAL threats are in self-extermination through technological, social or biological errors or misjudgements, asteroids and the natural cycles (and overall life cycle) of the sun.

We will never run out of resources, and wealth will continue to be created so long as there are humans who know some semblance of liberty. There are, however, many powerful people who have a vested interest in convincing people otherwise. A "scarce" resource is a valuable resource.

Of course a kettle or a gun aren't naturally occuring phenomena, but how did they come about? They were manufactured. How? By humans. Humans (being natural organisms) are a manifestation of nature and their behaviour is the enactment of nature whether it conforms to the natural progression of things or not. So making guns and kettles is human nature. Is this human nature somehow beyond normal nature because it's not natural?

I was twisting words before. If a man wants to shoot somebody then it is "natural" that he should design a gun for the job - morals aside. The gun itself is obviously not natural though.

where is the line between natural and unatural ?[/b]

That line is clear. But what about the line between nature and not-nature?

I am glad for you that you are under the illusion that everything is regenerating and vast endless supplies of resources will be bountiful for all man kind.

Perhaps people should try to look into the future.
Can you tell me that Oil, natural gas, Rain Forests, the ozone layer , and coal will replenish in the time for us to use it? On a humanistic time level?

I agree in
But that is not the issue at hand.
If any of these events do not take place then I think you underestimate overpopulation.

Nature and consciousness.
This is what separates us from the natural order of things, Evolution and nature do things from a non conscious perspective. Where as sentient beings like ourselves, we dabble in what mother nature would proceed in a process of ....nature. We alter it's coarse.
Growth and life.

Human nature. Its faults. Rape, murder, war, racism, bestiality, pedophilia, brutality, sodomy, polygamy etc.
This is nature?
What we do and If we do it, What ever it is, it is meant to be? It is nature?
Believe what you will. I disagree.

We on a conscious scale medal with mother nature.

Indeed, What is unatural about what we do? How are our manipulations of the enviroment any different than that of ants? We are organisms just like any others are we not? What makes us so special?
Consciousness could be the difference between us and other species, But what do we know enough about consciousness to make the judgement that we alone posses it?

Can you tell me that Oil, natural gas, Rain Forests, the ozone layer , and coal will replenish in the time for us to use it? On a humanistic time level? [/b]

Again, there is a growing body of evidence that oil is the result of geological processes, not biological. The Oil Economy is already 100 years old though. It is already on its way out... to be replaced by something else - and better. The issue is energy, not oil. We need energy, not oil. We swim in a sea of energy, and we are learning to exploit it. (I would LOVE to see oil dry up, as cheap oil has held the world back from moving on - which should have happened at least 50 years ago. There is too much power and wealth in oil to allow that to happen though.)

The rain forests are indeed being vanquished. What does that really mean? Are you aware that new growth forests provide FAR more oxygen than old growth forests? Or that the majority of all oxygen production comes out of the oceans?

The ozone layer depletion is a myth. It has proven to be cyclic - tied directly to the solar cycles. There is a reason nobody's screaming about that anymore... the same reason nobody's screaming about the global cooling everybody was so frightened of in the '70's.

Perhaps Global Warming is the next offering? Well, all available evidence indicates that Mars is warming at the same rate that Earth is. We can't create a computer model that will predict the weather next week, yet we are to believe that computer models tell us we're all gonna drown in 20 years because of the mean temperature of the earth rising a few degrees.

Incidentally - do you know what the most influential greenhouse gas is? Hint - it isn't CO2.

I'm not here saying none of these things are happening. I am saying we don't KNOW enough about our own planet to even understand whether they are or not. The scares come and go to accomodate political and corporate interests. (The ozone scare coincided quite neatly with the expiration of the patent for Freon. Pretty convenient, huh?)

And no... that's not the point. I've dragged this thread way off topic and will leave it go at this point. My point is that the THEORY that we will eventually run out of resources was stated in your theses as a fact. It is not fact. It MAY be accurate, but a damn good argument can be made that it isn't, too.

That's all.

Originally posted by pj

And no... that's not the point. I've dragged this thread way off topic and will leave it go at this point. My point is that the THEORY that we will eventually run out of resources was stated in your theses as a fact. It is not fact. It MAY be accurate, but a damn good argument can be made that it isn't, too.

And a good argument it is.
I can say that natural resources do replenish themselves.
My point was that it will be on a time table that has any relevance to us.

A point I would like to make in regards to nature and us
Doesn't seem that nature takes it's coarse as an unconscious player. We on the other hand have this conscious ability to alter things preemptively and knowingly.
And although we do not know a lot about our own consciousness I think it IS safe to say that yes, we are alone in this level of consciousness on this planet.

I have not heard of some of your ideas. Interesting.
I had always thought because the rain forest was in a tropical region that it produced oxygen year round, thus giving us our majority of oxygen.
New growth. Is it because the new growth replenishes on such a faster scale that it is comparable to old growth Forest?
And Again I thought it was the region that was the underlying factor.
The ocean theory??? How does that work? Decaying matter, Oragraphic lifting or what?

At last I read he Ozone whole was larger than ever recorded.
Does it matter. I am not sure.
Something to support your argument --> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1418/
But don't you think that even if these natural events happen on there own, that we are not speeding them up?

Originally posted by Howetzer
And a good argument it is. I can say that natural resources do replenish themselves. My point was that it will be on a time table that has any relevance to us.

And I can say that yes - resources replenish themselves on a time table that IS relevant to us in human life terms. I can also say that we haven't even BEGUN to exploit the real resources available to us. After all this time, we're just getting around to extracting oil from what used to be referred to as oil shale. There is enough helium-3 on the moon to power the earth pretty much forever. And that is STILL just the beginning of it. It is normal for humans to move forward. It is not normal for us to have stalled in something like an oil economy for 100+ years.

A point I would like to make in regards to nature and us. Doesn't seem that nature takes it's coarse as an unconscious player. We on the other hand have this conscious ability to alter things preemptively and knowingly. And although we do not know a lot about our own consciousness I think it IS safe to say that yes, we are alone in this level of consciousness on this planet. [/b]

I'm not so sure of that either. We now know that dolphins can call each other "by name". We know that all mammels dream. I've watched my dog read my mind in very real ways... reacting to things that were going on in my head with no outer hint of my intentions. I believe THAT is nature... and that our departure from that extended consciousness is unnatural.

I have not heard of some of your ideas. Interesting. I had always thought because the rain forest was in a tropical region that it produced oxygen year round, thus giving us our majority of oxygen. New growth. Is it because the new growth replenishes on such a faster scale that it is comparable to old growth Forest? And Again I thought it was the region that was the underlying factor. The ocean theory??? How does that work? Decaying matter, Oragraphic lifting or what?[/b]

These aren't theories... they are statistics. The top levels of the ocean sustain vast life that uses photosynthesis. Yes - you nailed the new growth oxygen production. Don't take my word for these things though... it is easy to do the research.

At last I read he Ozone whole was larger than ever recorded. Does it matter. I am not sure. Something to support your argument -->http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1418/ But don't you think that even if these natural events happen on there own, that we are not speeding them up?[/b]

No, I don't think we are speeding up anything. I DO believe that powerful interests play on our emotions and fears to increase their own power bases.

Remember the ozone hole over Kennebunkport? It never existed. Since we first became aware of the ozone hole, it has opened and closed three times - in sequence with the sunspot cycles. We weren't aware of it before, so we don't have data going back any further.

(One of the reasons I love Spirit's song, "Nature's Way," is because it reminds me of the terror that was inflicted on our young, drug-hazed minds in the '70's... "It's nature's way of telling you, soon we'll freeze..." That theory is still as valid as ever. It just isn't in vogue anymore.)

The only way for me to address your original premise/statement/theory is to go back to my spiritual faith and beliefs. For me, the REAL answer to your question regarding humans and nature is found there. I believe humans are doomed because of our warlike nature and continuous lust for power and wealth. Did we set ourselves on this path? COULD we choose differently? Many do choose differently... but as technology and communication continues to advance, the available power to be seized and the ability to seize that power grow steadily. At this moment, I believe there are many tremendously powerful entities battling one another for that absolute control.

In other words, we continue to create the means for absolute totalitarianism at the same time that we reach for advances in all aspects of life. There will always be those who will wish to take advantage of those opportunities. Technology itself will eventually make it possible. Our own efforts to improve doom us. It is technology, not nature, that will ultimately take us... and it will be at the hand of a ruler who desires absolute power.

That's a pretty black outlook for somebody who enjoys life as much as I do. Do I think there is any hope for humanity? Yes... I do. I do not believe it is to be found among humans though.

Heh... and I was going to leave it go. Thank you for asking... and for considering these things in the course of conversation. It is hard to talk about these issues, as we are all very carefully and deliberately conditioned to dismiss them. The next step after dismissal is usually denial for the sake of maintaining one's sanity.

Originally posted by pj+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pj)</div>

Heh... and I was going to leave it go. Thank you for asking... and for considering these things in the course of conversation. It is hard to talk about these issues, as we are all very carefully and deliberately conditioned to dismiss them. The next step after dismissal is usually denial for the sake of maintaining one's sanity.[/b]

It is hard to talk about.
I appreciate you bringing to light some of the grey areas that are certainly pertinent to this discussion.
Maybe it is the topic title that has thrown off my true intentions. I believe we are a part of nature. It does not mean that it has to fit in with nature, IMO.
My curiosity lies somewhere between how nature is intended to unfold and where our human perspective and our consciousness plays a role in that.
I feel as though I have been the doomsdayer for trying to address these type of issues in advance. One reason is because I too love life and feel that the entire idea of this topic is the reasoning for that. Future generations and my family should also enjoy our amenities we often take for granted.

<!--QuoteBegin-pj
I'm not so sure of that either. We now know that dolphins can call each other "by name". We know that all mammels dream. I've watched my dog read my mind in very real ways... reacting to things that were going on in my head with no outer hint of my intentions. I believe THAT is nature... and that our departure from that extended consciousness is unnatural.

It seems to me that in your last sentence you contradict yourself and state that there is indeed a separation.
Is it that although a separation, that it is not an advancement beyond that of some other species?

Originally posted by pj
The only way for me to address your original premise/statement/theory is to go back to my spiritual faith and beliefs. For me, the REAL answer to your question regarding humans and nature is found there. I believe humans are doomed because of our warlike nature and continuous lust for power and wealth. Did we set ourselves on this path? COULD we choose differently? Many do choose differently... but as technology and communication continues to advance, the available power to be seized and the ability to seize that power grow steadily. At this moment, I believe there are many tremendously powerful entities battling one another for that absolute control.

Having read that, I feel that if you were to read my original post that you and I are on the same page in regards to us, the earth and our human ways. That until we separated into the resource category. And my debate is unrefined at best.
But please let's not get into anymore statistical debates.

Originally posted by Howetzer
It seems to me that in your last sentence you contradict yourself and state that there is indeed a separation. Is it that although a separation, that it is not an advancement beyond that of some other species?

Maybe if you explain where you see the contradiction, I would better understand what you are getting at here. I see no contradiction.

I do believe there is a separation, one that has evolved - though I don't really like that term here. It is a separation in the same way that a marriage can go bad - people grow away from each other and from their environment. Humans have indeed grown away from their nature in some regards. Extended consciousness, which we still see in animals, is considered a scary anomaly in humans.

The question goes back to what we really ARE. Many believe we are spiritless automatons enjoying an electro-chemical illusion of self-awareness. Others - me included - believe we are spirits interfaced with this dimensional pocket through a physical (animal) body, with an awareness that there is much more than what we experience in the physical world.

As far as our empathy and "other awareness" goes, here is my own theory on that:

The depth of my thinking and concern for others seems to be inversely related to where I'm at on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. For those who have never had any psych, that heirarchy is:

Physiological
Safety
Love/belonging
Esteem
Actualization

That's actually inverted; as you read down my list, you are reading UP Maslow's. It's simple stuff though... staying alive is the lowest level of existence. As those needs are met, we rise to the next levels, and so on.

My theory is that my ability to look and live beyond myself is inversely related to this heirarchy. The closer I am to struggling for basic physiological needs, the more in tune I am with others and the world around me. As life gets better and I drift up toward that "actualization" plane, my focus becomes increasingly self-centered. Thus the highest level of existence according to Maslow would coincide with complete narcissism according to PJ.

To put it very concisely - the better off we are the less empathetic and more self-centered we become... and the further we depart from nature.

Originally posted by pj
I'm not so sure of that either. We now know that dolphins can call each other "by name". We know that all mammels dream. I've watched my dog read my mind in very real ways... reacting to things that were going on in my head with no outer hint of my intentions. I believe THAT is nature... and that our departure from that extended consciousness is unnatural.

I state that we are alone (meaning us humans) in this level of consciousness.
You go on to point out that there are some mammals who are capable of a variety of tasks that would put them on a more selective scale than other animals.
I don't see anywhere close to that of a humans. I presumed by your sentence, " and that our departure from that extended consciousness is unnatural" That you too believe that humans are above that of other mammals.
Maybe just in an unnatural way...?

[quote]I state that we are alone (meaning us humans) in this level of consciousness.

You go on to point out that there are some mammals who are capable of a variety of tasks that would put them on a more selective scale than other animals. I don't see anywhere close to that of a humans. I presumed by your sentence, " and that our departure from that extended consciousness is unnatural" That you too believe that humans are above that of other mammals. Maybe just in an unnatural way...?

Quite the opposite - I mean that humans have moved away from recognizing our connection to the world around us. I don't mean this in the eco-terrorist sense by any stretch. The use of "green" issues in the promotion of political and social agendas is dispicable. I mean that we are far more tied in and capable of far more awareness than we use anymore... so much so that we now refer to such connections as "paranormal." It is akin to forgetting we have eyes or ears. In that sense, it would be an unnatural way. We have headed in a direction that less and less takes advantage of what we actually ARE.

As far as the self-awareness of other beings on this planet, we are only making assumptions based on our own frame of reference. By our standards, our capabilities are unique. By dolphin's standards, we would probably appear rather crippled by our inability to hold our breath very long or move smoothly through what compromises the majority of the earth's surface.

Originally posted by pj

Quite the opposite - I mean that humans have moved away from recognizing our connection to the world around us. *I don't mean this in the eco-terrorist sense by any stretch. *The use of "green" issues in the promotion of political and social agendas is dispicable. *I mean that we are far more tied in and capable of far more awareness than we use anymore... so much so that we now refer to such connections as "paranormal." *It is akin to forgetting we have eyes or ears. *In that sense, it would be an unnatural way. *We have headed in a direction that less and less takes advantage of what we actually ARE.

We have certainly lost many of the attributes we once had. But we also gain in other areas.
It is sad that the practice of pseudoscience has not gained any foothold in any evolutionary regard to what direction we are going. So much so that , like you said it is categorized as paranormal.

Originally posted by pj
As far as the self-awareness of other beings on this planet, we are only making assumptions based on our own frame of reference. *By our standards, our capabilities are unique. *By dolphin's standards, we would probably appear rather crippled by our inability to hold our breath very long or move smoothly through what compromises the majority of the earth's surface.

Although it may be presumptuous to a degree, I can't see where you could argue that we are not on a separate plane of conscious existence than any other living creature.
Yes, in many physical comparisons our standards don't compare to many animals and never have. And we have lost some of what we did have. But our frame of reference is that of the consciousness.