05-30-2026, 05:44 AM
Rob - For me considering the fact that humankind is just beginning to have a light grasp on what might be called the known universe and zero grasp on what might be called the unknown universe my little brain can find no reason to reject anyone else's opinions out of hand.
Exactly. That’s the core of all speculation. No matter how much we think we know there is a mountain of evidence that we don’t even have the wherewithal to comprehend what exactly is our place in the big picture. And still we are such inquisitive little buggahs… so we speculate, even though, as ’Tang points out, our speculation is built upon a ridiculously small understanding of our surroundings.
randomq - I'm not claiming the existence of anything just that we may understand the issue better once we can account for how consciousness exists.
Interestingly Scientific American published an article just the other day..
From.. https://archive.is/VWSOy
Are the roots of consciousness hidden in the ancient deep brain?
Where it begins..
Some neuroscientists argue that the roots of experience lie deep inside the brain. If they’re right the consciousness club will get a lot bigger
It’s another example of how our understanding of things is still in its formative years.. all things, even the origins of man. And OMG the implications of finding our consciousness in our deeper more primitive, older, portion of the brain.. fun stuff.
It’s like our Big Bang Theory. It’s a grand concept. And those whose ideas hinge upon it cling to it rather than just be casual in their beliefs (and yes, there's no facts here, just beliefs) and open to all other, often contrary, ideas. And now, with the likes of the Webb telescope, as we are just beginning to see that far back in time.. just beginning to see.. and already the entire concept is in question. It leaves one to realize, all our concepts are most likely wrong.. are in a state of early development, and to cling to anything, and vehemently argue for them as some do, is a fool's errand.
At least with a skeletal doctor when a bone breaks they do their thing and it sets, and heals. So we can say, look that guy knows what he’s doing. But in reality the ‘science’ of setting a bone is probably so primitive compared to what it will be one hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, that folks will look back at what we think we know today as some kind of archaic voodoo medicine practiced by apes.
That’s why when one of us picked on another's casual comment about god I was motivated to write out (my OP) my belief. Which is, again, to say I have no religion, I believe in nothing, and haven't got any concepts other than faith there’s a rhyme to it all. And that, for me, is the ticket. Have faith, and no idea what I have faith in. In other words, I have faith in a unifying force that we all are a part of. But what that force is, how it works, why it works, I have no idea. But I am curious. And because I imagine unity I call the whole thing god.
Further, I point out, there are examples of more than we otherwise collectively accept as the conditions of life. As I have said, I am way impressed by the placebo effect. It is one of the very few examples of science having demonstrated, in their relished scientific format, that something is going on here that we’re not fully understanding. That just in ourselves, if we focus our attention, either with conscious intent or by being tricked into it, our minds are more powerful then we otherwise give them credit for. And this implies, to me, that there is so much more going on here, in life, in the very existence of the universe we find ourselves in, than our limited interpretation of everything encompasses. As randomq points out what is the magic of our consciousness?
And yeah, some in their pondering of all this call the mystical, the unknown, god. The religious give god form. It/he does this or that.. has a moral structure.. there’s a right and a wrong and consequences. While some foolishly cling for dear life to their need for god to be a deity, so they can deny god's existence. I don’t know anything about all that. But I do look at the universe and believe there’s structure, purpose, and am very curious about it all. But beyond that, hell, I have no idea.
I look at nature as more the story, a map of, an example of god than I do the Bible. Nature, as a natural construct must be more inline with the creation than any man made idea. So I turn to nature as an example of god. And nature baffles the shit out of me. Nature isn’t all love one another like the Bible thumpers go on about the lion and the lamb living in a peaceful harmony. In nature, the lion eats the lamb. I’ve had occasion to know hawks, Io, in their natural settings. They are very social, and amazingly I have had direct and repeated encounters with many of them. They’re incredible creatures, and yet they live wholly on meat, live, raw, meat. Their entire existence is predicted on killing in order to survive. And it is so incongruous with our’s. But then I try and grok that our place in this here and now is to wrestle with just that, our deeply embedded animalistic instincts over our perceived, imagined, higher selves.
Religion suggest there's a reason to attend our higher selves, our higher calling. To live by a set of morals. And we've built society upon hat structure. Others suggest we’re hybrids; primitive apes bred with spacefarers to meet specific needs long ago and then left to find our way. There’s so many variations on the theme.. the origin of man. Though, with so little data, sheesh we can’t agree on the state of mankind two thousand years ago let alone speak for our origins. Forbidden archeology brings up artifacts from tens of thousands of years ago and mainstream archeologists balk at them.
Personally, I enjoy the insights of Chandra Wickramasinghe, and find the work of Avi Loeb to be thought provoking, though I know both are dissed by “mainstream” astronomers. But damn, who’s to say they are wrong, or that those that would say they are wrong are right? I loved Clarke’s RAMA series. And OMG 3I/ATLAS sure does fill the imagination. I find Heinlein’s World as Myth proposition wholly plausible. I certainly find the notion that we are unique in having a higher consciousness to be absurd.. statistically it’s just nonsense.. and find both Chandra’s and Avi’s zeal for the quest of finding examples of others to be the real reason we’d support the sport of astronomy at all. But then after all the hours I spent as a kid on Mt Palomar as my father worked with the Hale Telescope, coupled with my love for the works of Heinlein, Bradbury and Clarke, I was raised to this point of view.. to ponder the heavens and imagine creation, imagine god. But give it all a name.. especially one that limits its possibilities.. that’d be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying there's no such thing.
Exactly. That’s the core of all speculation. No matter how much we think we know there is a mountain of evidence that we don’t even have the wherewithal to comprehend what exactly is our place in the big picture. And still we are such inquisitive little buggahs… so we speculate, even though, as ’Tang points out, our speculation is built upon a ridiculously small understanding of our surroundings.
randomq - I'm not claiming the existence of anything just that we may understand the issue better once we can account for how consciousness exists.
Interestingly Scientific American published an article just the other day..
From.. https://archive.is/VWSOy
Are the roots of consciousness hidden in the ancient deep brain?
Where it begins..
Some neuroscientists argue that the roots of experience lie deep inside the brain. If they’re right the consciousness club will get a lot bigger
It’s another example of how our understanding of things is still in its formative years.. all things, even the origins of man. And OMG the implications of finding our consciousness in our deeper more primitive, older, portion of the brain.. fun stuff.
It’s like our Big Bang Theory. It’s a grand concept. And those whose ideas hinge upon it cling to it rather than just be casual in their beliefs (and yes, there's no facts here, just beliefs) and open to all other, often contrary, ideas. And now, with the likes of the Webb telescope, as we are just beginning to see that far back in time.. just beginning to see.. and already the entire concept is in question. It leaves one to realize, all our concepts are most likely wrong.. are in a state of early development, and to cling to anything, and vehemently argue for them as some do, is a fool's errand.
At least with a skeletal doctor when a bone breaks they do their thing and it sets, and heals. So we can say, look that guy knows what he’s doing. But in reality the ‘science’ of setting a bone is probably so primitive compared to what it will be one hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, that folks will look back at what we think we know today as some kind of archaic voodoo medicine practiced by apes.
That’s why when one of us picked on another's casual comment about god I was motivated to write out (my OP) my belief. Which is, again, to say I have no religion, I believe in nothing, and haven't got any concepts other than faith there’s a rhyme to it all. And that, for me, is the ticket. Have faith, and no idea what I have faith in. In other words, I have faith in a unifying force that we all are a part of. But what that force is, how it works, why it works, I have no idea. But I am curious. And because I imagine unity I call the whole thing god.
Further, I point out, there are examples of more than we otherwise collectively accept as the conditions of life. As I have said, I am way impressed by the placebo effect. It is one of the very few examples of science having demonstrated, in their relished scientific format, that something is going on here that we’re not fully understanding. That just in ourselves, if we focus our attention, either with conscious intent or by being tricked into it, our minds are more powerful then we otherwise give them credit for. And this implies, to me, that there is so much more going on here, in life, in the very existence of the universe we find ourselves in, than our limited interpretation of everything encompasses. As randomq points out what is the magic of our consciousness?
And yeah, some in their pondering of all this call the mystical, the unknown, god. The religious give god form. It/he does this or that.. has a moral structure.. there’s a right and a wrong and consequences. While some foolishly cling for dear life to their need for god to be a deity, so they can deny god's existence. I don’t know anything about all that. But I do look at the universe and believe there’s structure, purpose, and am very curious about it all. But beyond that, hell, I have no idea.
I look at nature as more the story, a map of, an example of god than I do the Bible. Nature, as a natural construct must be more inline with the creation than any man made idea. So I turn to nature as an example of god. And nature baffles the shit out of me. Nature isn’t all love one another like the Bible thumpers go on about the lion and the lamb living in a peaceful harmony. In nature, the lion eats the lamb. I’ve had occasion to know hawks, Io, in their natural settings. They are very social, and amazingly I have had direct and repeated encounters with many of them. They’re incredible creatures, and yet they live wholly on meat, live, raw, meat. Their entire existence is predicted on killing in order to survive. And it is so incongruous with our’s. But then I try and grok that our place in this here and now is to wrestle with just that, our deeply embedded animalistic instincts over our perceived, imagined, higher selves.
Religion suggest there's a reason to attend our higher selves, our higher calling. To live by a set of morals. And we've built society upon hat structure. Others suggest we’re hybrids; primitive apes bred with spacefarers to meet specific needs long ago and then left to find our way. There’s so many variations on the theme.. the origin of man. Though, with so little data, sheesh we can’t agree on the state of mankind two thousand years ago let alone speak for our origins. Forbidden archeology brings up artifacts from tens of thousands of years ago and mainstream archeologists balk at them.
Personally, I enjoy the insights of Chandra Wickramasinghe, and find the work of Avi Loeb to be thought provoking, though I know both are dissed by “mainstream” astronomers. But damn, who’s to say they are wrong, or that those that would say they are wrong are right? I loved Clarke’s RAMA series. And OMG 3I/ATLAS sure does fill the imagination. I find Heinlein’s World as Myth proposition wholly plausible. I certainly find the notion that we are unique in having a higher consciousness to be absurd.. statistically it’s just nonsense.. and find both Chandra’s and Avi’s zeal for the quest of finding examples of others to be the real reason we’d support the sport of astronomy at all. But then after all the hours I spent as a kid on Mt Palomar as my father worked with the Hale Telescope, coupled with my love for the works of Heinlein, Bradbury and Clarke, I was raised to this point of view.. to ponder the heavens and imagine creation, imagine god. But give it all a name.. especially one that limits its possibilities.. that’d be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying there's no such thing.