Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

The Only Immortality

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

In a message dated 2/26/05 12:18:07 PM, kipalmazy writes:

 

 

> Pete anounces talking about consciousness:

>

>

> Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in

> its unsullied generality.

>

>

> Immortal?! You will never live time enough to know this but time

> enough to die. Death is the end of consciousness; there is neither a

> personal nor an unsullied consciousness you will be able to talk

> about when you are dead....nor will you be able to experience

> something. Death isn't " deep sleep without dreams " nor

> unconsciousness (of itself, too) nor samadhi nor any other kind of

> experience. Death is death, Pete. Telos, Schluss, finito,

> fin....nada.

>

> ........isn't that fantastic enough?

>

>

> All:One

> Kip Almazy

>

>

>

>

>

 

P: Yes, Kip, that's correct from a personal

standpoint, but consider, if you would, that consciousness

is not the person. I was viewing consciousness just

as a universal possibility, such as heat. Heat is not a

self sustaining, a self generating phenomenon, it requires

certain physical conditions to appear, and so does

consciousness. Yet, both are always indestructible as

possibilities, when those conditions are present.

I'm sure you can see that, and if you don't, no big deal.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete wrote:

 

Nothing Material, objective, or that can be perceived as partaking

of individuality could be immortal because it arises co-

dependently, and is, therefore, subject to change.

 

The above, disqualifies from immortality everything we could think

of. And this, of course, includes consciousness, simply because

consciousness is created by living nerve cells. And yet,

awareness (because this two terms are

interchangeable) is conferred a sort of

immortality by its generic nature.

 

Consciousness, despite the fact, of being created only by individual

organisms, remains

unstained by individuality, just as electric light can't be said to belong

to any single light-bulb, consciousness doesn't partake of an

individual's qualities. Although, it is perishable in its personal

form, it's immortal in its unsullied generality.

 

Individuality is form, and forms are perishable, yet potentiality confers

immortality

on all types of forms. Potential can't be extinguished. Even if the

universe

were to vanish, the potential for another, exactly the same,

would remain intact. And is in this way, that awareness

due to his lack of individual qualities, and its eternal

potential becomes immortal. And if these were

not enough consider that subjective time

can't exist without awareness, therefore

no discernible period of unawareness

could exist. A billion years and a

second feel exactly the same

length, no duration at all.

 

So in conclusion, are we immortal? No, not in

our individualy. But, yes, in consciousness

generic purity, and endless potentiality.

 

Pete

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

 

 

Hi Pete,

I've just finished Domasio's 'Looking for Spinoza' and all the time I

was wondering because of its philosophic tendency when he would approach the

'hard question'. On page 198 he finally does. Let me quote - " There is a

major gap in our current understanding of how neural patterns become mental

images. The presence in the brain of dynamic neural patterns (or maps) related

to an object or event is a *necessary* but not sufficent basis to explain the

mental images of said object or event. We can describe neural patterns - with

the tools of neuroanatomy, neurophsiology and neurochemistry - and we can

describe images with the tools of introspection. How we get from the former to

the latter is known only in part.....((He gives a general picture of what he

believes to be the current situation and finally he states)) But I fall short

of suggesting, let alone explaining, how the last steps of this image-making

process are carried out " .

 

 

He draws back from suggesting that consciousness is created by living cells

because the monism that he proposes is more profound in that in conformity with

the ideas of Spinoza he holds that both matter and mind are attributes of a

single substance which he calls God. This obviates the problem raised by

Descartes when mind is viewed as non-extended substance and matter is extended

substance. As Aristotle first pointed out in De Anima interaction presumes

commonality.

 

This thinking in terms of Matter and Mind is a totally natural reflex of the

human being. Shankara in his Preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhyasa (Vedanta

Sutras) spoke of cit(consciousness) jada (the inert). Taking that bifurcation

as an apparent given we are drawn into the paradox that this would make

awareness impossible. How could that jada(object) become cit(conscious) in me

the subject when they are opposed as night the day. How is what is

inconceivable the case? How does the jada (object) become superimposed on the

cit (subject). That leads Shankara to consider the common forms of

superimposition to gain some analogical leverage.

 

The monism that Spinoza proffers is conceptually prior to the matter and mind

divide. Incidentally Thomas Nagel (What its like to be a bat) has an

admiration for the Spinoza thesis.

" My own instincts are in the direction of a Spinozistic monism, which will

reveal both the mental and the physical as incomplete descriptions of a more

fundamental reality that explains them both, as well as their neccessary

connection - but of which we have at present no conception. "

(from an essay Consciousness and Objective Reality publ in a book 'The Mind-

Body problem , a guide to the current debate publ.Blackwell. I recommend it,

the luminaries are all there)

 

So Pete because of the problem of causal closure the idea of matter generating

consciousness via micro tubules or whatever is strictly inconceivable and even

absurd. No evidence could support it and to say as Galen Strawson does that it

simply must be the case because matter is really all that there is seems to me

to be doomed. " So they are obliged to hold that experiental phenomena just are

physical phemomena, although current physics cannot account for them " . In a

way Shankara is saying the diametrically opposite in his account of

superimposition.

 

Michael.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/26/05 12:18:07 PM, kipalmazy writes:

>

>

> > Pete anounces talking about consciousness:

> >

> >

> > Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in

> > its unsullied generality.

> >

> >

> > Immortal?! You will never live time enough to know this but time

> > enough to die. Death is the end of consciousness; there is

neither a

> > personal nor an unsullied consciousness you will be able to talk

> > about when you are dead....nor will you be able to experience

> > something. Death isn't " deep sleep without dreams " nor

> > unconsciousness (of itself, too) nor samadhi nor any other kind

of

> > experience. Death is death, Pete. Telos, Schluss, finito,

> > fin....nada.

> >

> > ........isn't that fantastic enough?

> >

> >

> > All:One

> > Kip Almazy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> P: Yes, Kip, that's correct from a personal

> standpoint, but consider, if you would, that consciousness

> is not the person. I was viewing consciousness just

> as a universal possibility, such as heat. Heat is not a

> self sustaining, a self generating phenomenon, it requires

> certain physical conditions to appear, and so does

> consciousness. Yet, both are always indestructible as

> possibilities, when those conditions are present.

> I'm sure you can see that, and if you don't, no big deal.

 

 

What a stink!

 

 

Then we could equally state (and it would sound absurd) heat

is " immortal " , heat is not the person. Is heat a quantum possibility

or the result of the big bang? Is the bigbang a quantum possibility

or are quantum possibilities a result of the big bang? Living

creatures have one thing in common and that's the DNA. What is DNA?

A result of the big bang or a quantum possibility?

 

What makes consciousness or even unconsciousness so attractive to

you, Pete? What's the " big deal " with consciousness or heat or

whatever outside the lifeform you are in now?

 

You are unable to give an accurate and appropiate definition on

consciousness like the rest of human beings. You are spreading here

all the time your belief-systems under the umbrella of " no-big-deal "

empirical data combining smattering with street-smartness:

 

" Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in

its unsullied generality. "

 

You present here consciousness as a dichotomy variable " perishable-

personal " vs " immortal-general " talking about an " unsullied

generality " . Is something wrong with " perishable-personal " ? Is it

sullied? Why? Why should someone swallow such phantasms?

 

You are free to go on with such beliefs but my dear friend you are

moving more and more away from the " Zen-platform " you once were upon.

 

But Ok, if we are on discussing consciousness, I would like to ask

you why you superimpose to your perceptions a " generality "

and " unsullied " additionally? If you are talking about your

experiences, ask yourself in which degree they are culturally

conditioned. Are you not talking out of " the subject Pete " ? Is the

consciousness of an ant sullied? Is life, DNA, sullied and why? Are

you not talking out of your cultural and personal lesions?

 

 

 

Know thy self, Pete!

 

 

 

ALL:One

Kip Almazy

 

 

P.S. We always talk from a personal position, Pete, everyone,

because we talk, including you, my dear. Truth or reality is

somewhere in between, interwoven, masked, disguised. Consciousness

isn't perhaps such a funny thing and has nothing to do

with " reality " or " truth " . Don't be so ridiculous to put your self

in a position outside consciousness and give here lections about

consciousness. You have no clue who and what and where you are like

all the rest of the " mortals " . Can you live with it? If you don't,

no big deal!

 

 

Throw the thorn away, man, if you don't have more thorns to pull out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throw the thorn away, man, if you don't have more thorns to pull out!

 

 

If you have some thorns to pull out yet, Pete, stop faking here some

sort of mastery and incorrigibility. The last time it seems to me

you've got a tad megalomanic. Sure, it's always easy to discard

things one is unable to apprehend by using some sort of " non-dual "

rhetoric or " street-smartness " . It's hard to learn, it hurts

sometimes like a condemnation. Get down to earth!

 

You are on the wrong track in the discussion with Lewis, Pete!

 

BTW, when ever a circus appears in town my children and I are there.

 

 

All:One

Kip Almazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/26/05 11:50:17 PM, kipalmazy writes:

 

 

> What a stink!

>

>

> K: >Then we could equally state (and it would sound absurd) heat

> >is " immortal " ,

>

P: Using the word immortal regarding heat would be absurd, unless

we use it poetically. Heat as a possibility is, nevertheless,

indistructible,

and so is consciousness whether you like it or not.

 

> K:> Is heat a quantum possibility

> or the result of the big bang? Is the bigbang a quantum possibility

> >or are quantum possibilities a result of the big bang? Living

> creatures have one thing in common and that's the DNA. What is DNA?

> >A result of the big bang or a quantum possibility?

>

P: Both are quantum possibilities, which is a fancy way of saying both

could happen over and over again under certain conditions. The distinction

I'm trying to highlight is that they are not unique events which require

special creation and can't be repeated like Bach's Organ Concerto in C minor.

 

>

> K:>What makes consciousness or even unconsciousness so attractive to

> >you, Pete? What's the " big deal " with consciousness or heat or

> >whatever outside the lifeform you are in now?

>

P: I wrote that for you Kip, or so it seems, you are the only one who had

an allergic reaction to it. :)

>

> K:>You are unable to give an accurate and appropiate definition on

> >consciousness like the rest of human beings.

>

P: Please, give me a 100% accurate definition of any mental

phenomena. It can't be done. Does that mean we should stop

trying to communicate, and should delete all these lists?

 

> K:You are spreading here

> all the time your belief-systems under the umbrella of " no-big-deal "

> empirical data combining smattering with street-smartness:

>

P: Well, that, is the way it seems to you, my intention is really

to stimulate thoughts or discussion of certain topics.

>

> " Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in

> its unsullied generality. "

>

> K: You present here consciousness as a dichotomy variable " perishable-

> personal " vs " immortal-general " talking about an " unsullied

> generality " . Is something wrong with " perishable-personal " ? Is it

> sullied? Why? Why should someone swallow such phantasms?

>

P: For me there is nothing wrong with a perishable consciousness,

but for most people it's a hard pill to swallow, so they cling

to all those beliefs in immortal souls, heavens, reincarnation, etc.

Unsullied was probably not a good choice of words. The notion I was

trying to convey was that our identity is a complex of thoughts-emotions

which is reflected in consciousness, but never tarnishes, or imprints it

as a dye permanently colors a cloth.

 

>

> K:>You are free to go on with such beliefs but my dear friend you are

> >moving more and more away from the " Zen-platform " you once were upon.

>

P: Thanks, for the warning, dear friend, since it comes from you, I'll look

into

it.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr writes:

 

 

> Hi Pete,

>

> W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add a bit

> >more about consciousness.

>

P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you.

>

> W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision

> >center and the person suffering from that still can move around

> >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has

> >consciousness?

>

> >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we

> >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa.

>

> >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ?

>

P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception

antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started

pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth,

that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement

detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats

more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate.

When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator

needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all

that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.'

No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social

lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more

aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and

those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel

more alive than when facing live or death situations.

 

Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. :))

>

> Pete

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

 

Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add a bit

more about consciousness.

 

When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision

center and the person suffering from that still can move arround

without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has

consciouseness ?

 

I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we

could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa.

 

Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ? And

if that is true then the world we consciously perceive already is the

view of our environment like for example society ?

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/26/05 2:15:27 PM, ombhurbhuva@e... writes:

>

>

> > Hi Pete,

> >         I've just finished Domasio's 'Looking for Spinoza' and

all the time

> > I

> > was wondering because of its philosophic tendency when he would

approach the

> > 'hard question'.  On page 198 he finally does.  Let me quote -

" There is a

> > major gap in our current understanding of how neural patterns

become mental

> > images.  The presence in the brain of dynamic neural patterns (or

maps)

> > related

> > to an object or event is a *necessary* but not sufficent basis to

explain

> > the

> > mental images of said object or event.  We can describe neural

patterns -

> > with

> > the tools of neuroanatomy, neurophsiology and neurochemistry -

and we can

> > describe images with the tools of introspection.  How we get from

the former

> > to

> > the latter is known only in part.....((He gives a general picture

of what he

> > believes to be the current situation and finally he states))  But

I fall

> > short

> > of suggesting, let alone explaining, how the last steps of this

image-making

> > process are carried out " .

> >

> >

> > He draws back from suggesting that consciousness is created by

living cells

> > because the monism that he proposes is more profound in that in

conformity

> > with

> > the ideas of Spinoza he holds that both matter and mind are

attributes of a

> > single substance which he calls God.  This obviates the problem

raised by

> > Descartes when mind is viewed as non-extended substance and

matter is

> > extended

> > substance.  As Aristotle first pointed out in De Anima

interaction presumes

> > commonality.

> >

> > This thinking in terms of Matter and Mind is a totally natural

reflex of the

> > human being.  Shankara in his Preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhyasa

(Vedanta

> > Sutras) spoke of cit(consciousness) jada (the inert).  Taking

that

> > bifurcation

> > as an apparent given we are drawn into the paradox that this

would make

> > awareness impossible.  How could that jada(object) become cit

(conscious) in

> > me

> > the subject when they are opposed as night the day.  How is what

is

> > inconceivable the case?  How does the jada (object) become

superimposed on

> > the

> > cit (subject).  That leads Shankara to consider the common forms

of

> > superimposition to gain some analogical leverage.

> >

> > The monism that Spinoza proffers is conceptually prior to the

matter and

> > mind

> > divide.  Incidentally Thomas Nagel (What its like to be a bat)

has an

> > admiration for the Spinoza thesis.

> > " My own instincts are in the direction of a Spinozistic monism,

which will

> > reveal both the mental and the physical as incomplete

descriptions of a more

> > fundamental reality that explains them both, as well as their

neccessary

> > connection - but of which we have at present no conception. "

> > (from an essay Consciousness and Objective Reality publ in a

book 'The Mind-

> > Body problem , a guide to the current debate publ.Blackwell.  I

recommend

> > it,

> > the luminaries are all there)

> >

> > So Pete because of the problem of causal closure the idea of

matter

> > generating

> > consciousness via micro tubules or whatever is strictly

inconceivable and

> > even

> > absurd.  No evidence could support it and to say as Galen

Strawson does that

> > it

> > simply must be the case because matter is really all that there

is seems to

> > me

> > to be doomed.  " So they are obliged to hold that experiental

phenomena just

> > are

> > physical phemomena, although current physics cannot account for

them " .  In a

> > way Shankara is saying the diametrically opposite in his account

of

> > superimposition.

> >

> > Michael.

> >

> Hi Michael,

>

> Glad to see you stood up to dance this song. You are the ideal

partner

> for this dance because you are truly curious about the subject,

without

> being emotionally involved, as most are.

>

> First, let's see if we can come up with a definition we both can

agree with.

> Would you say that to be conscious goes beyond perceiving, that to

truly

> call an act of perception conscious there most be a knowing of the

> of the stimulus. For example when my wife snores, and I touch her

lightly,

> she stops snoring, yet she doesn't wake up or knows I touched her.

Next

> morning, if I say that I hope I didn't wake her up. She neither

knows I

> touched

> her, or that she was snoring. Some could say she simply forgot.

But, some

> people who suffer injury to the connection between the vision

center and

> the

> frontal lobe looses all consciousness of seeing, yet can walk

around a room

> without bumping into furniture, yet if you ask them what was the

object they

> just avoided they have no idea unless the y touch it. These

proves they

> can perceive without being aware of perception, just as robots

equip with

> a camera can also walk around obstacles.

> So in this way we could define consciousness as knowledge of

perception.

> So, perception without knowledge triggers a single act (avoidance)

and

> vanishes, while in knowing perception the perception is catch in a

hold

> of mirrors which multiply its effects.

>

> Well, let me stop here. Later we can discuss whether assigning

> nerve cells as the most immediate cause of consciousness precludes

> it from having other more ultimate sources, such as quantum fields,

or

> even the primal void.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P: Thanks, again, for your concern, Kip. I have no idea, if there

are thorns left to pull out. Nothing seems to hurt, mentally that

is, without brother suffering to help locate those thorns, I have no

idea if there are any left. If one begins hurting, I'll let you know.

 

 

No thanks required between friends. Yes, it's true I get urticaria

on too much pseudo-cientific-semi-spiritual consciousness-gibberish

in caustic moralin sauce with Indian spices.....

 

unsullied-ly yours,

Kip Almazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr@p... writes:

>

>

> > Hi Pete,

> >

> > W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add

a bit

> > >more about consciousness.

> >

> P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you.

> >

> > W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision

> > >center and the person suffering from that still can move around

> > >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has

> > >consciousness?

> >

> > >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we

> > >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa.

> >

> > >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ?

> >

> P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception

> antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started

> pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth,

> that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement

> detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats

> more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate.

> When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator

> needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all

> that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.'

> No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social

> lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more

> aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and

> those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel

> more alive than when facing live or death situations.

>

> Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. :))

> >

> > Pete

> >

> >

> >

>

 

Cause-and-effect goes from this moment to the " past " , not from an

imagined mysterious " start " of time at the Big Bang, then to

single-celled life forms, then to multi-celled life forms, then to

humans... The present moment does not appear as it is because of the

past. The past appear as it does because the present moment is as it

is. Pete, you have an upside-down view of what evolution is.

 

/AL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr@p... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Hi Pete,

> > >

> > > W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add

> a bit

> > > >more about consciousness.

> > >

> > P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you.

> > >

> > > W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the

vision

> > > >center and the person suffering from that still can move around

> > > >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use

then has

> > > >consciousness?

> > >

> > > >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we

> > > >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa.

> > >

> > > >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ?

> > >

> > P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception

> > antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started

> > pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth,

> > that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement

> > detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats

> > more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate.

> > When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator

> > needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all

> > that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.'

> > No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social

> > lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more

> > aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and

> > those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel

> > more alive than when facing live or death situations.

> >

> > Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. :))

> > >

> > > Pete

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

> Cause-and-effect goes from this moment to the " past " , not from an

> imagined mysterious " start " of time at the Big Bang, then to

> single-celled life forms, then to multi-celled life forms, then to

> humans... The present moment does not appear as it is because of the

> past. The past appear as it does because the present moment is as it

> is. Pete, you have an upside-down view of what evolution is.

>

> /AL

 

Well, my view of cause-and-effect where the present is causing the

past is probably as much upside-down as the predominant view of

cause-and-effect.

 

Here is another view that embraces both of these other views:

 

Consider a two dimensional fractal image, such as the Mandelbrot Set (

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/explorer.html ). Such image is

static and fixed for all times. Yet, when we zoom in areas in a

fractal image, more and more details are revealed and new patterns

emerge as we zoom deeper into the picture. There is no end to variety

and details in a fractal image. Even though such image is static, we

can zoom in endlessly into it and thereby create a never ending

journey of changing form. Yet there is no time involved in the picture

itself. It is timeless. In practical computer simulations we cannot

zoom in endlessly because of the limitations of precision in the

numerical calculations performed by floating-point arithmetics in the

computer. But theoretically we can zoom in endlessly into a fractal image.

 

Now let's shift to a model of the entire existence. Imagine all that

is as a set of all possibilities. Then further imagine complexity as a

subset of this overall set of possibilities. The total set of

complexity can be modelled as a two dimensional image, similar to the

Mandelbrot Set. This image is static; it is changeless, forever the

same. There is no time involved here, so how do we get time,

cause-and-effect, change and variety? We simply select one single

point in this image of complexity and this represents an infinite

zooming in into smaller and smaller areas of the image of complexity.

This selection of a single point is a single event, yet it will go on

forever zooming deeper and deeper into the image and thereby revealing

more and more details in endless variety.

 

The selection of a single point in the image of complexity can be

represented by the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics.

One single collapse resulting in an endless zooming in into complexity

at an exact certain point which we can call an individual soul. The

collapse happens now. There is only now. The future is constanly being

created by the zooming in into complexity. The Big Bang represents the

whole set of complexity, and a human being represents a unique

zoomin-in point in the same set of complexity. Both the Big Bang and

the human being are the same timeless set of complexity. The unique

soul is also timeless, changeless, for it is simply a unique, exact

single point in the timeless configuration space of complexity.

 

/AL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. :))

 

 

I recomend a reading on the Hegelian concept on self-consciousness

and on reciprocal recognition illustrated by the dialectic of master

and slave and, of course, Lacan's view on it.

Semir Zeki, BTW, too.

 

 

All:One

Kip Almazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...