Air has molecules and a measurable density, although slight, it still is something.
If you go along this way of thinking, that means that even atoms have consciousness...
), offering unfounded speculations as facts, as when you claimed a tree has consciousness....Stephen Hawking ...All he does is sit around and wonder about alien life forms and worry about the messages we're sending extra terrestrials with our radio signals..
Oh, I think he's probably got a little more than that on his mind.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Anybody watching what passes for entertainment these days, or watches the news, would quickly see that humans can be pretty aggressive and hostile, and that's the message we're broadcasting. Whether anyone's listening, or has managed to decode the signals, is another matter, but Hawking's right about this much at least: that IS what we're broadcasting.
I think that's where you go astray, it's the same place you went astray and I began to disagree with you in the "So what does happen when you die" thread (which I WILL get back to eventually...
Now I do understand there is a huge leap between our ''body awareness'' and my supposed awareness of an atom. But the point is that consciousness is clearly not something that you can put a little box. There a different levels and states of consciousness and the question is... where do you draw the line. I choose no line at all in my metaphysical understanding of the world. But from a scientific point of view, I understand that we need to draw lines. It's useful to differentiate an amoebas awareness from a human's because there is clearly a difference. We certainly can draw lines in the spectrum.
What we do know though, is that, if consciousness was a 'something', then it must qualify as matter or energy. An if science could identify distinctly what that type of energy that was and harness that energy, then one could effectively control the conscious states of all beings. In which case, it could (admittedly this is a slippery slope) also be argued, that an omnipotent being - like a God - can exist to influence the conscious states of all other beings in some sort of deterministic fashion.
Lots of ifs and coulds and woulds, yes, but if consciousness can be controlled, then that seems like a +1 for the God camp.
Does the number two have matter or energy? Not that I know of, yet I don't deny its existence.
What about Pythagor's theorem? What is that made of? Surely not matter... Can it be described in ''energetic'' terms?
Does the concept of acceleration have matter or energy? You need energy to accelerate, but the concept itself is made of ''nothing''.
What about a poem? What is that made of? Of course, it's made of words, symbols and metaphors. And they are all made of letters. But these letters are just symbols of phonems. They're made of nothing, yet they exist right?
Does something necessarily need to qualify as energy or matter to exist?
All things exist. If it is anything, from a noun to a verb, it exists in some context. There's nothing that doesn't exist.
Is this a denial of anyone's post or an affirmation?
Well nothing is nothing, imo. I can see how it can be treated like something even if it is still nothing. Like, when I think of 'outside the universe' if there is such a possibility, I think it's infinite nothingness. That makes it sound like something, even though it's not.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something. One might argue that "nothing" is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
The four terms in this example are
Eternal happiness,
A
Well, questioning the validity of the first premise is besides the fact. The fallacy is based on the equivocation with 'nothing'. It could be pizza and a ham sandwich and the conclusion would be necessarily that a ham sandwich is better than pizza.
And that's just wrong.
What about Hawaiian-style with bacon instead of ham? *drools*
well, no, I like pineapple but not on pizza. I will accept back bacon as a ham replacement though but only if it's very well done and kind of on the crispy side. I prefer Pepperoni though. Just pep, extra cheese, well done but not burnt. That's how pizza is supposed to be.
I hate ham. That being said, a ham pizza and ham sandwich are equal to me. Both ridiculously disgusting and not edible for me without a gag reflex. They are equally gross.
God didn't create the Universe because it's self-creating, and infinite in distance and duratiion with finite construction possibilities.
Elliptical galaxies are constructed from the emission groudstate called empty space or the background microwave radiation, and can evolve into spiral galaxies. These evolve into globular galaxies, which in turn evolve into nebula galaxies. These galaxies de-construct back to the emission groundstate from which elliptical galaxies are constructed.Within spiral galaxies stars and solar systems are constructed from the emission groundstate.
The above derives from the ultimate Paradigm of Science, which also specifies the construction and evolution of Biology. The Paradigm is presented in the essay "The Ultimate Paradigm of Science (The Universe beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics)". You can access the essay by putting the title into your browser.
Welcome to the ultimate paradigm shift revolution.
I'm reading the essay anyway.