Having to use our fingers – the manipulating tool-making apex of our environment-altering physiology – is even funnier!
If there was a universal consciousness, though, would it have any capability, or would it merely be a spectator? I mean, the function of our consciousness pertains to relating to our environment, acting upon it, and trying to avoid being killed or dismembered by it. We also, as beings, constitute an environment in and of ourselves: the constituency of our bodies is more non-human microbes than human cells, and our ability to affect that environment is rather limited.
If this putative universal mind is at all similar to ours, its body would not be under its direct control, it would just be like it was watching a gazillion little movies – which, it seems to me, would be the apex of frustration. If when we die our consciousness were to become enfolded into this greater consciousness, then we should be prepared to never know happiness again (unless we can periodically escape from it to again inhabit physical entities), because this thing would have to be in a really foul mood most of the time.
If it were a distributed consciousness – a colloquium of many minds – then it could make some sense, abstractly, that it could engage in discourse and debate. Participatory philosophy. They’d do a lot of mathematics.
But such an abstraction could hardly evolve in the ordinary way. That kind of remote, austere, uninvolved mind would provide no survival advantage.
If some Star Trek fan wants to suggest that some race of carbon-based life-forms transcended mere physicality, and rose to the perfect level of “mind beings,” I’ll say, “Okay, maybe.”
Evidence would be nice…but it isn’t the worst idea anyone’s ever come up with.
(A perfect mind arising from no pre-existing order – the God of Aquinas – that is down there as one of the worst ideas ever. Also shoes with separate little pockets for your toes.)
Hey, dammit, I have those shoes, they are the only kind that properly fit my duck feet without eight inches of empty toe-box. Yeah, they kind of suck in the rain and snow, but for dancing, nothing better.
Oh, fudge. I thought I was making a funny. Um… Lemme try again…
Hot dogs in packages of eight and hot dog buns in packages of ten?
Maybe just “hot dogs”?
But not the most hilarious.
“Hey, Odin!”
“Yah, what is it, Yahweh, ol’ buddy ol’ pal o’ mine-ah?”
"Look what I got for my birthday! It’s a world-making kit! You can even make living creatures! You can make them do anything!"
“Yah?!”
“Oh, yeah! Look at this bunch over here! snerk I made them so they have to piss and fuck with the same organ! heh-heh-heh And they have to live with that! And I made some of them gay, you won’t believe what they do!” 
Heck, some of us eat, talk, breathe, vomit, laugh, and fuck with the same organ!
Debate doesn’t interest me. I have no interest in being “correct”. Hard to believe, I know, but I prefer unfettered, barnstorming dialogue - with fearless people.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with defense/debate, I just prefer my thought with a little more…movement. If it bothers you, there’s no shortage of people with whom you are perfectly free to interact, in that regard. Obviously.
“Occam’s Razor” - no thinking required. Not my bag, sorry.l
“Fearless people” :rolleyes:
Then why the heck are you posting in a forum called Great…oh whatever, nevermind. :smack:
I’ll tell you what’s funny – it’s imagining a colony of ants sitting 'round the aphid bar, debating ant philosophy about whether or not those Giant Feet that sometimes step on them are actually attached to some other ant-like species, and whether or not those putative Feet-Beings possess consciousness similar to ant consciousness. Imagine if they assumed the Feet-Beings were part of some hive-mind, with Worker Feet and Drone Feet and one great Queen Foot at the very top…because that’s the limit of what those philosophical ants could possibly comprehend, right?
What I’m saying is, the Universal Mind (if such a thing exists) would be thoroughly incomprehensible to our puny human minds. Assuming that the U.M. acts and thinks and has objectives or desires identical to our own is absolutely the wrong way to think about it – that much we can assume to be true, based on pure logic. So, in essence, getting stoned and staring at the back of your hand is as good a method as any to understanding that type of Mind; it’s no less accurate than any kind of Scientific Method we could possibly apply to it.
It goes beyond the metaphor of several blind men feeling up an elephant – it’s more like, the blind men are so microscopic, they can only touch one atom at a time. How long before they put their heads together and figure out they’re examining a giant ear, or a trunk, or a kneecap, let alone describe the massive thing that body part’s attached to?
So…this vast universal consciousness can’t figure out how to communicate with us ants? We have abilities and competencies it doesn’t have? Oh, the mighty, mighty universal consciousness…and it can’t even figure out how to mail a penny postcard?
Stupid, stupid universal consciousness.
There’s nothing “fearless” about not applying reality to your thoughts. In fact, there is no risk whatsoever in saying whatever pops into your head as long as you never hold yourself accountable-as long as you never check to see if you may be wrong, you can always believe yourself to be right.
Right?
That is in fact a completely lame analogy. Ants are wired to get food, or to fight, or to push out the eggs, they are not built for abstract thought. We can imagine unimaginable things, we can apply logic to questions, we can theorize, test and falsify. That there are boundaries to our comprehension is probably without question, but that the parameters of some universal mind are necessarily beyond us because it must be to us like we are to insects is just silly. You just cannot know that we cannot know that.
Ah, wrongness! We already know that things aren’t as they appear. We don’t know how they actually are, but we know they aren’t the way we’ve been assuming they are - scientifically speaking.
You don’t have to “know” what something is, to understand that it isn’t something else. “Knowing” narrows one’s perspective by confining lines of thought to one’s beliefs. “Knowing” is just “believing” and when lines of thought and logic crash into beliefs, it frightens most people into abandoning the thought and logic that lead them to the crash, rather than reconsider their beliefs.
I don’t care what you think of me, personally, or what you believe you “know”. I don’t actually care what people like you think about much of anything. I simply prefer the company of thinkers to the company of “knowers” and your opinion of that is of no relevance, whatsoever - but I do confess that such attempts to bully and embarrass those who dare to voice thoughts you don’t like into silence can be extraordinarily annoying.
If you *have *a thought or idea that I haven’t already considered, you aren’t likely to speak it openly because someone might bully you - whereas I don’t care. Bully away. If you’re scary enough or boorish enough to silence those who might, otherwise, dare to speak of things that frighten you to think about, perhaps I’ll lose interest and go away. Worth a try, eh?
Probably wouldn’t work today, though. I’m pretty busted up and the pain meds aren’t getting the job done - so I’m on the far side of cranky and looking for things to smash, myself.
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from the underappreciated Better Off Ted:
“Those are just facts, and facts are just opinions, and opinions can be wrong.”
All of this self-righteous swagger, especially this part
seems to support what I said in my previous thread.
Oh good - a victim of the spreading non-persecution persecution complex.
No one is bullying you we’re simply pointing out the enjoyment of a good story doesn’t rely on solid foundation, but a decent engaging discussion does. If you want to share your dynamic thinking on just how blue colourless green ideas sleeping furiously are then MPSIMS or a blog might be a better place.
Good question…hmmm…I do it because I have found that those who prefer their thought fluid and “in motion”, as opposed to the stagnant defense of beliefs, often hang out in debate forums where thought can move pretty far, pretty fast, even in a single post, before it crashes into somebody’s pride and goes off topic - turning all “argumentum ad hominem”.
It’s where I find my dialogue partners.