On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:01:18 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>In article <36cf7c25.791438 at news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm at pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:03:46 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>>>>>>Indeed. But what makes you think that's a result of intelligence?
>>>>>>Ok, fine argument.
>>>What do YOU think it is a result of?
>>>Rat race of survival?
>>>"Its a jungle out there", you know.
>>>>>>So you think this world is not an utter, unending
>>>and unlimited intelligence?
>>>>>>What is it then?
>>>And where did you get that idea?
>>>>I think inteligence is merely one of the things we're aware of. Think of
>>it as a series of concentric layers of increasing simplicity.
>>The external world
>>>>Each layer interacting only with the ones to either side.
>>Well, this is as good of a model, as any other.
>Except, even there you made a few fundamental mistakes.
>First of all, your very structure is an ancient structure,
>dated back at least 5000 years ago, just to put things
Well, 4000 years at least. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's been
improved on since except that science has given us some more insight
into the nature of the individual components (though not yet
>And the way it goes is like this:
>>1. The body
>[the matter, the "external" world, and all of it,
>and that is your first mistake, distinguishing the body
>from external world, as it is the same thing - a physical
We're not playing that kind of game here. This picture is wrapped
arround an individual consciousness and to the consciousness the body
_is_ a distinct thing and special thing.
>2. The mind [that, which can perceive the body]
>You see, this is a very consistent and appropriate
>model, with insight, levels of magnitude more in deapth,
>than your monkey logic.
>Now, in order to have 2. here what is the most fundamental
>Well, the most fundamental requirement is that it has
>to be different from one, and in YOUR definition,
>there is no even mentioning of intellect to be distinguishible
>from the "external world", as you simply did not provide neither
>basis, no reasons why they are different.
>>Again, THE MIND can PERCEIVE the body.
>[therefore, it is not the body]
That's what I said.
The mind is an information structure.
>The hell will freeze over before you can disprove it.
>>3. Consciousness [that, which can perceive the mind]
>Again, the same rule applies.
>If you can DETECT the mind, no matter via what means,
>that implies that you are using the mechanism,
>external to the mind.
>>That is consciousness.
That's what I said.
>4. Turia [that, which is beyond ALL description]
>Nothing can be said about it.
>And it does not imply that it does not exist.
>Else, it would not even be in definition.
>Yes, there IS something beyond the mind and
>consciousness. Plenty of even scientific evidence
>for it at this junction.
Let's have some then, but I fail to see how science can be used in any
useful way with respect to that which is beyond all description.
>And lastly, your assertion of
>"Each layer interacting only with the ones to either side",
>is pure mental masturbation, as you will not be able to
So let's have some counter-examples. Various kinds of "psychic"
phenomina might be counter examples where they to stand up and be
>It is one dimensional view of reality,
>or ALL THERE IS.
No, it's a simple model of one part of reality, which doesn't pretend to
be "all there is".
>Existance is multi-dimensional and simultaneous.
>You concepts of time are simply obscene.
You've read them then? (I say nothing about time in this thread).
>There is no restrictions of ANYTHING interacting
If that were true then the whole unverse would be incomprehensible
chaos. Limititations create the structures which allow us to exist.