Are any of you here a Sensitive?

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;fjbWr3ODbAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo[/video]


this shit is fascinating.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Consciousness is the awareness of experiencing self and environment, intelligence is the ability to make sense of it.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I would have to ask how one defines intelligence before deciding on the difference. As I was discussing earlier with ganja man, there are many animals that demonstrate varying levels of intelligence, but tests confirm that they may not even be self-aware. We all know dogs display intelligence as an ability to learn. Bees and many other insects show intelligence in problem solving at the level of the hive but not so much individually, i.e. the hive mind. It is well established that predators need more intelligence than prey and this is often demonstrable with brain architecture.

Consciousness is merely being self-aware and for that we need the ability of abstract thought, another level of intelligence, so in a way, they are related IMO.
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
What was the point?
...the point was that you cannot look at a 'holy' book with scientific eyes. It does not require the sort of scrutiny that you'd prescribe. It's no big deal, it's just that you can't expect to argue about your own thoughts and feelings, right? Those are subjective and have no real place in the scientific arenas.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
the bible claims to be the one and true reality . . .its is not meant to be interpreted as subjective . . .. so that pretty much settlers that argument
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
the bible claims to be the one and true reality . . .its is not meant to be interpreted as subjective . . .. so that pretty much settlers that argument
...yes, and no (imo). How could someone be sustained on locusts and wild honey, as an example. I think that's why people scrap over this stuff. To your point, though, it is not a subjective view that we're supposed to take when looking at 'any biblos', either. They call that lunacy. Religare (religion) is union, sexual union...so in that sense it happens to be the only creator of multiple realities - unless you were in a Sigourney Weaver movie :shock: However, that doesn't make that particular scroll the only one to 'eat'. At this point in my development, I feel comfortable in saying that all of those books form a bigger picture. They should compliment each other instead of divide. But, I dream.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
...the point was that you cannot look at a 'holy' book with scientific eyes. It does not require the sort of scrutiny that you'd prescribe. It's no big deal, it's just that you can't expect to argue about your own thoughts and feelings, right? Those are subjective and have no real place in the scientific arenas.
I certainly can look at a book that makes objective claims about reality with scientific eyes.

It depends on what you're arguing.
 

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
I certainly can look at a book that makes objective claims about reality with scientific eyes. It depends on what you're arguing.
...apocrypha and its interpretation is what you'd be arguing, in this case. It's a tough gig no matter which 'side' a person is on. It's even an argument within the groups of believers. I guess the thing to remember is that a lot of these cats were being persecuted one way or another. They had to hide with words.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I would have to ask how one defines intelligence before deciding on the difference. As I was discussing earlier with ganja man, there are many animals that demonstrate varying levels of intelligence, but tests confirm that they may not even be self-aware. We all know dogs display intelligence as an ability to learn. Bees and many other insects show intelligence in problem solving at the level of the hive but not so much individually, i.e. the hive mind. It is well established that predators need more intelligence than prey and this is often demonstrable with brain architecture.

Consciousness is merely being self-aware and for that we need the ability of abstract thought, another level of intelligence, so in a way, they are related IMO.
I think awareness is a softer criterion than self-awareness. I would say a waking dog or lizard is conscious ... even if not very much so in the lizard's case. cn
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
I believe my dog is conscious. It clearly exhibits emotions like happiness, sadness, shame, deceit, panic, etc., etc.,. I don't have any basis for this, just living with him and being around him all the time... :)
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;dZrzRrPRdC0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZrzRrPRdC0[/video]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I enjoyed this episode
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I believe my dog is conscious. It clearly exhibits emotions like happiness, sadness, shame, deceit, panic, etc., etc.,. I don't have any basis for this, just living with him and being around him all the time... :)
Sadness, yes, shame no. Guilt, shame, etc. are human responses to a moral value. Like intelligence, consciousness can have varying levels of meaning. It can simply mean sentience, then qualia, and every level up to self-awareness and intentionality.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if I completely agree. I think even in the animal kingdom there's a sense of the 'golden rule', at least within their own species. Our moral systems could be less voluntary than it seems at first glance, at least in the most basic sense.
 
Top