| |
|
I'm going to put the gloves back on, no doubt resulting in a bloody nose, severe concussion and ada argumentative ten count. Hey I, like most pugilists, enjoy the pain!
Thanks corecase! In essence what you have posted is what I was trying to explain. My right brainedness seems to be big on concept and poor on explanation. This Causes me to look pretty fucking stupid if the feedback I have received thus far is anything to go by. on this site is anything to go by. It was never my intention to indulge in 'pseudoscience', I was only hoping to propose that the science and religion or metaphysics or however you'd like to term it need not be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the 'Genesis' illustration was clumsy, but the point I was trying to make was, when interpreted literally, Genesis can be easily disproved via the application of modern knowledge. However it is only concept of time (7 days) in the Genesis account of creation that needs to be taken metaphorically, the rest can be viewed as a reasonably accurate, if simple, account of the steps in evolution to humanity. Particularly if we consider and allow that forces of nature were not as well understood, and thereby less explainable, to the authors of Genesis as they might be to us today. Like I said, Genesis may be seen as an attempt to explain things that the science of the time was yet unable to measure.
With regard to the form that the consciousness might take, I'm not proposing a centralised, all knowing, all seeing "god", but, much like the giant "Honey Mushroom" fungus that was posted by Quantum, we all could be considered shoots off the consciousness that by some is called god. Using the mushroom as a metaphor we may see ourselves as little "Mushrooms of Perception". But all of these "Mushrooms of Perception" are connected to each other via the "Fungus of Consciousness". This consciousness forms a 'consensus' of the things we all perceive and provides a framework for perception to exist within. Indeed if the mushroom was not a part of the greater fungus beneath the surface, but connected to a different fungus, it would exist in a different reality. I don't know if this is making any sense at all, I'm just trying my best! What I am trying to say is that there are certain things that we all experience by virtue of being in this reality, breathing, gravity and so forth. This creates the parameters, the universe in which our perception exists. Different perceptions may perceive the reality differently, but that doesn't actually change the reality of the universe itself. This the reality that we all experience, that forms the structure of the universe. Our individual perception of that reality will be different, just as each individual mushroom's view of the forest will be different, but each one is aware that it is growing from the ground, with the sky above, surrounded by trees, existing in the universe of the forest. None of the mushrooms can see, perceive or measure that it is part of the greater "fungal growth" of which they are a part, but in fact they depend upon it for their existence.
I know that this doesn't address HOW the fungus, or the mushroom, got here. I'm pretty happy happy that corecase made a decent interpretation of what I'm trying to get at.
As for evidence that the "universe is possible because of the existence of perception", the only evidence I can give to is that which is provided by to me by my own perception. I see the universe around me every day so clearly my perception does make universe possible. Would it be possible without my perception? Well without the ability to be able to perceive the universe, without the benefit of perception, I guess we'll never know! That of course doesn't PROVE that the universe is impossible without perception, just doesn't it prove that the universe is possible without perception. The only proof of any currency to me is my ability to see the universe, exist within it, and interact with it. So for me the two are dependent on each other to exist. If my perception of the universe were to no longer exist, then effectively the universe would cease to exist - regardless of science saying that it still did. Indeed for science to exist, the universe would need exist, otherwise there would be nothing for science to measure. Therefore the universe is dependent upon perception to exist, and vice verse. That is what makes consciousness God. So while not being able to prove my assertions, nor can they be dis proven, much like the existence/non-existence of god. Looking out the window won't do!
I understand that this might all be very unsophisticated and unoriginal, and poorly thought out. If someone could point me toward some of truly "original" thoughts in posts elsewhere, let me know where they are, I'd be keen to see what originality looks like! As for administrative issues about where I posted, or whether a new thread was required, please accept my apologies. As a new user on Barbelith there is still a lot I need to learn about such things so if you'd like to move the thread by all means do so.
I understand that any time we discuss the matter of existence there is required a little bit of "faith" required to grasp the concepts. Rather than put all of my "faith" in a certain belief my universe is made up of facts and possibilities. Until those possibilities can be conclusively proven, at which point they become fact, or disporoven, at which point they cease to exist. Stoner philosophy? Perhaps. Probably more accurately mushroom philosophy. Quite clearly, when discussing reality, each mushroom's perception is altered.
Cheers! |
|
|
).