> To be able to get it right is more than just natural selection.
Not necessarily. If getting it wrong means that existence for a species is discontinued, then natural selection could
be conceived as a random, passive process of selection.
It could and it couldn't.
> What was the role of the female bee's ass on the flower? To allow the bee to progate it. What is the role of
psilocybin in mushrooms? To allow us to propagate it.
I guess the mushroom didn't take into account the possibility of drug prohibition. Either way this is a bit too much
of a stretch. Freak accident is still a possibility.
Just as much so as the other possiblility.
> And it implies an intelligence that has not been accounted for.
But it doesn't mean that a mushroom would be any more intelligent than a species of grass, or a form of bacteria.
In fact, bacteria seems to be remarkably more adaptable than mushrooms,
Its all the same intelligence.
> so I think your implication is seriously disappointing.
I don't aim to please.
> There is nothing passive about struggling to survive.
> No. The thing is though that's assuming that the process of evolution is a "struggle." Your choice of verb is
constructing evolution as an active process. I could just as easily say that "There is nothing active about
accidentally not becoming extinct."
How is assuming evolution as being a passive process a more valid perspective?
> There was first the desire to be there then nature responds by giving the appropriate tools to accomidate the
desire of the species.
That's a major fallacy. You're assuming and attributing psychological motives which may or may not be unique to
human beings and applying them to other species. How can you make such a statement about the subjective
experience of other species?
I am not talking about psychology. I am talking about consciousness and its role in the ecosystem. How can you
make an objective argument about something that can't be proved either way?
> This is of course all speculation but no more so than darwinism.
No, you're making much larger assumptions.
Is it a larger assumption that the chicken came first or the egg? Or is it an even larger assumption that they came into
existence at the exact same time?
> When Einstein made his assumption he felt that perception is so important that the physical universe revolves
around it.
Again, it didn't have so much to do with perception as it had to do with measurement. Even scientific instruments
are affected by the laws of relativity. And obviously, the speed of light would be measured by instruments, and not
by an individual's perception.
Not if we didn't make those instruments. Any instrument that we make is an extension of our own perception.
But this has nothing to do with mushrooms.
Its all connected.
> Regardless of how much physicists try to take conscioussness out of the equation they still are thinking about it,
and therefore plays the most fundamental role in science. In other words if there was no consciousness there
wouldn't be a theory of anything anywhere.
>That doesn't necessarily mean that consciousness is the determining factor of the universe.
It might. Ignoring consciousness is not going to answer that question any more so.
Science is about
observed phenomenon. Yes, the phenomenon have to be observed (beheld by consciousness), but that doesn't
make much of a statement about the causal role of consciouness in the physical world.
And science doesn't make much of a statement about the acausal role of consciousness in the physical world.
> Science doesn't say anything more about who we are and where we are going then any religion does.
> The subject of this thread is not humanity. The subject of the thread is the role of psiloc(yb)in in the mushroom.
The subject was about the evolutionary role of psilocybin in mushrooms and its function for survival. The ideas that
were put forth was from the darwinian perspective. I offered to expand that perspective. By including the consciousness factor (which is loosely defined to include all possiblities of what consciousness could be), we cross the line into religion(which is also as loosely defined as conciousness is). The fact that mushrooms are practicely synonymous with the religious experience and the fact that so many people who consume mushrooms are motivated by a religious drive suggests the the role of psilocybin as being a religious one. But what I was doing in that statement was to equate science with religion, which is what science really is. Its another manifestations of the logos, albiet a very pure one. I brought that up to show that when we talk about the origins of life it all boils down to just belief, plain and simple.
> Structure and content are different things altogether.
> They are still abstractions. You cannot have one without the other.
You may have a point in the physical world. Just like you can't have consciousness without a universe and vise versa.
> If I say (A or B) not A therefore B, I am giving you a structure without content.
That's ridiculous. You can't force structure and content apart. Your "logical" statement doesn't really even make
any sense.
That logical structure does make sense. If I throw some content in there it would sound like this: Either an apple
or a banana. Its not an Apple, therefore its a banana. The conclusion is true as long as apple and banana are your initial assumptions. If you can't seperate stucture from content you can't generalize. I may have used words to make the stucture. But those words have a stucture called a definition. And the all the words in the defintion have defintions. There has to be a point where you just agree at a starting point. That starting point is just a matter of reference. In this
case I used Apple and Banana as a starting point. The ultimate starting point is in the form of I, as in I am... But that can't happen until there is at least two things in the universe. Then what "I am" can only be determined by refererencing what "you are".
> Whether or not they are buildings, telescopes, spaceships, or logical abstractions its all still just a construction in
one form or another.
Yes, and even your silly argument is a construction, and all constructions contain content.
These posts are a silly argument. And it will go on ad nauseum if someone doesn't stop. So the buck stops here. If you feel you need to make your final arguments, I will understand, but this is my final reply on the subject.
> In this case, your construction is like a skyscraper made out of sand.
Or better yet, my imagination........
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
sunconscious 
felix 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Xlea321
TheProdigy
Grandpa
ShRo_0My
chodamunky
Frappy