JackofSpades said:

What is the direction were heading in?


Leary says space migration and McKennna says Archaic Revival.

Perhaps both, first an archaic revival and then space migration?


what do you all think?

Do these theories run contrary to one another or what?

---

Lion said:

I would like to add that an "archaic revival" as I see it would not involve a return to a lower state of consciousness collectively, but merely becoming more intimate with the earth instead of looking at it as something in turns to take what we want from and protect ourselves against.

---

Icelander said:

Well the earth lived on after the big rock hit but it wasn't much of a nice place. Right now we are getting rid of life forms at a record pace. Destroying forest, who knows what the long term effects of all this pollution will be, the ocean which I considered invulnerable when younger is going down fast. Yeah there will still be life around but it's not the kind of "life" that I'm going to want. Shit I don't want what we got now. You youngsters don't know how much has gone for the most part. You grew up thinking concrete and tarmac was the norm. I'm glad I'm getting gone. I wouldn't want to be a kid now.

---

Quote:

People can react to stimuli and perform tasks without being able to play a conscious role.

---

Quote:

if a soul can be represented by consciousness, then it shows us that there is something important about a soul, because otherwise, why would we have it? It is surely the most unusual trait of the human? How and why would this weird, useless phenomenon evolve into a creature?

---

Quote:

it is a tennant of many eastern faiths?

---

Not quite...maybe I should refine what I said, though, since the inability to conceive of one's nonexistence is universal, you can find many religions that don't believe in an immortal soul...again early Christianity, Buddhism (some sects, at least), Taoism (AFAIK), etc. I don't pretend to know too much about eastern religion because there's a lot to know, but I know that even some modern Christian sects (Eastern Orthodoxy, for example...I am one ) believes in the bodily resurrection, not one of spirits or ghosts.

Noteworthy said:

computing speed has very little to do with designing an intelligence, even though it is a prerequisite.

---

Noteworthy said:

and it is true that we are finding that a many thought processes can and do occur without conscious awareness. People can react to stimuli and perform tasks without being able to play a conscious role. This does not show us that a soul is totally unnecessary though - on the contrary - if a soul can be represented by consciousness, then it shows us that there is something important about a soul, because otherwise, why would we have it? It is surely the most unusual trait of the human? How and why would this weird, useless phenomenon evolve into a creature?

---

JackofSpades said:

I know Buddhism isn't absolute truth (I believe in it is all) but Buddhism and the psychedelic experience both seem to suggest that reality is just a manifestation of the mind...


So in pure essence, all is consciousness. Therefore consciousness is evolving into the realization of itself.

---

Noteworthy said:

I think it is a silly hypothetical because we don't know if the brain CAN be replicated.
But I await your return, to explain how consciousness plays a role in the evolution of... life

---

kydelic said:

It doesn't...life evolves, the consciousness does.

---

Noteworthy said:

kydelic! if you are going to butt in, please take note of the opinions that are being discussed. If you do not think consciousness plays a role in evolution of life, why not sit back and await Nymphaea's answer?

---

Kydelic pretty much answered the question for me.

We evolved consciousness.  We are the most highly conscious of all the animals on Earth, but other animals also exhibit certain signs of some varying levels of consciousness.  It has evolved as a side effect of thinking and also as something that furthers our survival.  Being conscious improves our chances of survival as well as the chances for the survival of the species.  I also think that animals as a collective evolving consciousness helps for the survival of all the animals.

When we are conscious we are more motivated to live.  When we are conscious we hold oursevles more responsible for our actions which improves the chances of survival of our species as well as the rest of life on Earth.  When we are conscious and we realize that everyone else is life takes on a new meaning.  I think we are less likely to kill and we are more likely to save someone else.  We are more likely to help those in suffering because we realize that they are actaully experiencing the suffering.  To a certain extent consciousness evolved because animals evolved thinking about the past and the future.  (At least humans did for sure).

Anyways, back to the question of whether or not the brain can be replicated.  Can the actual physical make up of the brain never be replicated because it is just to highly complex?  Or is there something more then just physical and that is why it can not be replicated?  If it is just the fact that it is a physical structure then where is the "soul?"

i don't think it makes the brain any less special or significant int he universe to think of it strictly as a physical thing.  It truly is amazing that this highly complex structure can actually experience the universe, and it is the only thing that gives the universe any meaning.  The meaning of the universe is to create life, and the meaning of life is to experience.  The brain amazes me, and I sometimes call consciousness and collective copiousness the "soul."

I do not do a great job of explaining everything that I mean.  I wish I could.  I highly recommend you read this book in the link below sometime.  It explains what I am trying to say using really good metaphors and clear explanations.  The ideas in this book are so deep that I guarantee they will blow your mind.  It has permanently changed the way I've thought about a lot of different things.  I kind of compare it to an acid trip that you will remember all your epiphanies from.

You should smoke while you read this book too, best read well high ever. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop

This is a very lively conversation and I have been enjoying it.

Quote:

You should smoke while you read this book too, best read well high ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop

---

I've been wanting to read that for a while now, I'm guessing it is good then? I just need to give my brain a break from nonfiction though

kydelic said:

Quote:

You should smoke while you read this book too, best read well high ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop

---

I've been wanting to read that for a while now, I'm guessing it is good then? I just need to give my brain a break from nonfiction though

---