I understand your position and feelings. I have not concluded that yet, and I don't think it's because I'm just stupid or deluded. I think there are some reasons to keep hoping. ps: Just because there is suffering and clear injustice, does not prove more cannot exist - or consciousness is more than what some will insist it must be. Frederic Myer's work first comes to my mind - and he did good work. Hodgson's and William James' work with Mrs. Piper. More contemporary is the work of cardiologist Pim von Lommel and scientist Sam Parnia.
One fundamental belief most spiritual traditions maintain - is the idea of a soul. Inviolate and non-perishable. That is, the body itself is just a vehicle for the soul. Materialism has yet to prove the soul does not exist. Consciousness remains a mystery to science and human philosophy. Science has not proven materialism (at all). Ontology regarding consciousness remains an open question.
Meaning for me (right now) is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious, and to experience myself as a whole. Symbolism and myth express the importance of the individual and "expresses life more precisely than does science." While science deals with averages and universal statistics, myth (and stories) provide the needed subjectivity necessary for each of us as an individual to bring meaning to our life. Currently, I don't believe reality or consciousness is some kind of mechanical (strictly materialistic) accident, nor do I believe one's individuality is something that is meant to be set aside. But I could be wrong.
It's interesting how they are still searching for what produces consciousness, and have not found it yet. Perhaps they will - but personally, I doubt it. Just as much as I doubt they will ever be able to make a digital computer AI possess a single emotion, or become consciously self-aware.
I suspect consciousness itself is a fundamental - the fundamental.
While I agree that there certainly is no self awareness without consciousness, I see consciousness as what differentiates us from any other living physical organism (that we know of at present). Thus, I do not see consciousness as sine qua non (i.e. fundamental) to physical life itself.
I do not doubt that we humans certainly share anatomical and physiological characteristics with the other high order mammalian vertebrates out there, but I see that as evidence of sound logic by an Intelligent Designer using anatomical and physiological biochemical patterns that work well, not some "common ancestors homology" based on the mythical "evolutionary tree of life".
Origin of Life: You Can't Trust Everything You Hear (Long Story Short, Episode 9)
Interesting. We both agree self-awareness is a unique feature to consciousness, which IMO will not be produced by any kind of man-made machine.
However, I find the question of "what is consciousness?" fascinating. Consciousness is not just what we may imagine it to be - or the surface level ego-awareness we all identify with "the I". A great deal of consciousness lies within the "unconscious" which by definition, we ordinarily remain unconscious of.
I differ in regards to your views on other living organisms. I see them as other forms of consciousness - how far down the line the food chain, I don't know - although I suspect pretty far down.
Agree - scientists are nowhere near solving the riddle of abiogenesis. My guess, is because they're going about it the wrong way - the materialistic assumption there is something more fundamental than consciousness, that can spontaneously produce consciousness. Seen all sorts of arguments - none of them convincing.
Gypsy—it’s better than good enough. It’s earth saving. I did gardens for rich Yuppies with more dollars than sense and got all my families off pesticides and nitrates and all the rest of the poisons people think they need to use to look “to the manor born”.
I understand your position and feelings. I have not concluded that yet, and I don't think it's because I'm just stupid or deluded. I think there are some reasons to keep hoping. ps: Just because there is suffering and clear injustice, does not prove more cannot exist - or consciousness is more than what some will insist it must be. Frederic Myer's work first comes to my mind - and he did good work. Hodgson's and William James' work with Mrs. Piper. More contemporary is the work of cardiologist Pim von Lommel and scientist Sam Parnia.
One fundamental belief most spiritual traditions maintain - is the idea of a soul. Inviolate and non-perishable. That is, the body itself is just a vehicle for the soul. Materialism has yet to prove the soul does not exist. Consciousness remains a mystery to science and human philosophy. Science has not proven materialism (at all). Ontology regarding consciousness remains an open question.
I have always considered that life’s meaning is to leave the world a better place than if you hadn’t existed.
My career consisted of creating beauty outdoors where there was formerly none. And I’ve literally planted thousands of trees in my lifetime.
Not sure if that’s good enough though, compared to my MD brother, whose business was saving lives.
Meaning for me (right now) is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious, and to experience myself as a whole. Symbolism and myth express the importance of the individual and "expresses life more precisely than does science." While science deals with averages and universal statistics, myth (and stories) provide the needed subjectivity necessary for each of us as an individual to bring meaning to our life. Currently, I don't believe reality or consciousness is some kind of mechanical (strictly materialistic) accident, nor do I believe one's individuality is something that is meant to be set aside. But I could be wrong.
You aren't wrong.
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png
BUT, there are way too many Ivory Tower Intellimorons in Academia who prefer their myth to irrefutable probability math:
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-260322171228.png
It's interesting how they are still searching for what produces consciousness, and have not found it yet. Perhaps they will - but personally, I doubt it. Just as much as I doubt they will ever be able to make a digital computer AI possess a single emotion, or become consciously self-aware.
I suspect consciousness itself is a fundamental - the fundamental.
While I agree that there certainly is no self awareness without consciousness, I see consciousness as what differentiates us from any other living physical organism (that we know of at present). Thus, I do not see consciousness as sine qua non (i.e. fundamental) to physical life itself.
I do not doubt that we humans certainly share anatomical and physiological characteristics with the other high order mammalian vertebrates out there, but I see that as evidence of sound logic by an Intelligent Designer using anatomical and physiological biochemical patterns that work well, not some "common ancestors homology" based on the mythical "evolutionary tree of life".
Origin of Life: You Can't Trust Everything You Hear (Long Story Short, Episode 9)
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA
Interesting. We both agree self-awareness is a unique feature to consciousness, which IMO will not be produced by any kind of man-made machine.
However, I find the question of "what is consciousness?" fascinating. Consciousness is not just what we may imagine it to be - or the surface level ego-awareness we all identify with "the I". A great deal of consciousness lies within the "unconscious" which by definition, we ordinarily remain unconscious of.
I differ in regards to your views on other living organisms. I see them as other forms of consciousness - how far down the line the food chain, I don't know - although I suspect pretty far down.
Agree - scientists are nowhere near solving the riddle of abiogenesis. My guess, is because they're going about it the wrong way - the materialistic assumption there is something more fundamental than consciousness, that can spontaneously produce consciousness. Seen all sorts of arguments - none of them convincing.
I love your views, Jamenta
That's kind of you to say gypsy33. Thanks for that. ;)
Gypsy—it’s better than good enough. It’s earth saving. I did gardens for rich Yuppies with more dollars than sense and got all my families off pesticides and nitrates and all the rest of the poisons people think they need to use to look “to the manor born”.