And we can relate your "dark" analogy. Say I said, "Dark has no reference to color". Certainly you could say that I was wrong, as it appears the statement is overarching (In other words, it appears I'm speaking about all things dark). And, as you mentioned, dark can be in reference to color and emotion, among other things.

I felt you were being misleading, that's all.

Really? Are people/humans the only Conscious Perspectives in the Universe?

Who else did you have in mind?

I think it a rather vain conceit to assume that humans are the only Conscious Perspectives.

Fine. But, let's suppose that we let the evidence we have guide what we think we know, shall we?

It may be there is other life, but so far as we know, there is none.

Now, starting from there, is it not true that there was the Sun, Moon, and stars, before there was consciousness.

(Of course, even if there is other consciousness, that is no reason to believe that objects did not exist before they existed too. Isn't that right. So the issue does not even depend on whether there is other consciousness beside human consciousness).

Isn't that what we already do? I do.


What sort of measuring device of what is and is not 'life' do you employ, that you would exclude, for example, every species other than the human? Is a horse not 'life' according to your method of discrimination/determination? A fish? A tree? Nothing but homo sapiens, according to your discriminations are 'living'?
I don't know about you (and the 'we' to whom you refer), but I and most of the other human inhabitants of this planet accept that there is other 'life' besides 'us people'.


There is absolutely no evidence in support your implied assumption. It would be, at best, a 'belief'.
First, there is no 'before' Consciousness.
'Time' (linearity/sequence) is a concept within the 'ground' of Consciousness, as is also the concept of wholism.
And no, there is not anything that exists that is not perceived.
Perceiver and perceived are one and the same; without the one there is no other.


I'm having difficulty deciphering your intent here.
Not anything exists that is not perceived by Conscious Perspective. ('One' Consciousness, a multitude of unique Perspectives (us)!) Such a 'perception' is it's existence!
There is no plurality of Consciousness/Mind. It is monism, not a dualism, not contextual.
What you refer to as 'objects', I would refer to as 'perceived/conceived objects', as there is no evidence of the existence of anything commonly called 'objects' outside the mind, and quantum theory and millennial mysticism and philosophy (critical thought) come to the same 'converging' understanding.
There is no evidence, even, of an 'out there' out there!
You seem to be giving 'independent life' to what you perceive as 'autonomously existing' rocks and water, 'non-life'!

I am afraid that what you and scientists believe is not the same.

Scientists believe that the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and the stars, considerably predate the existence of human beings, and therefore (as far as we know) consciousness.

So, if you don't mind, I am going along with science, and not you.

I hope that does not offend you, but, there it is.

Besides, if Earth did not predate people, how come that people began to exist on Earth?

Hard to figure that one out.

I suppose you think that Earth and people came into existence at the very same time.

What a fortunate coincidence that was!

Neither I nor any good scientist has beliefs on the examined subject. We have thoughts, interpretations, Perspectives.
When you say "and scientists", are you referring to all scientists as implied? Are you refering to all but one? 40? 28? 13? And how many Perspectival variations within the 'inner sanctum of similar Perspective'?
Nah, I just dont think that you can support that statement as is. I'm happy to 'concede' that there are all sorts of Perspectives and that is one. Linear is difficult thing to transcend, but quantum says that we must.



Really?
Again you imply that humans are the only Conscious life in the universe. Again I ask, do you really think so?

Sorry, you are pulling this out of your... 'bag of trix'. It is not a verifiable or even supportable 'fact'. Maybe 150 years ago you statement about 'scientists' might be a bit truer...

There is no evidence of any 'causal' connection between humans and Consciousness.

And SOME scientists BELIEVE that there was a Jesus who walked on water. Belief is the stuff of religion, not science. Don't confuse them. Science is about evidence, experiment and 'thought', not 'belief'.


Go for it, catch up to cutting edge scientific and philosophical though and see what you find. The 'science' that you reference sounds like something from some backwater high school science class 40 years ago. Go for it! Do the work, ride the wave and apply your own critical thought to the up to date evidence. Enjoy!


I'm not looking for converts or to convince. If you have to go study and learn and use your critical thought to refute everything that i say, I sat, hot damn, go for it! Come to your own 'educated and informed and critically examined' understanding!
Why would I ever be offended that you would think for yourself! Or not?


The question is answerable. But I really don't think that this is the thread.


Nah, it fits cleanly in my model.


Is that a question, or a statement of the state of your suppositions.


Ah, a sarcastic dismissal, often a place where respectful and thoughtful discussions head 'south'.

So far as I know, the only conscious beings are people and (some) animals. If you have any further information, please let me hear of it.

Best estimate of the age of Earth is 4.5 billion years.
Best estimate for Genus Homo. 2.5 million years.
Best estimate for humans as we now know them is, 25,000 years.

You do the math.

What we cannot know, not being in the heads of other species (we are all animalia) can well be infered from the evidence. A certain Consciousness can be infered when a horse walks 'around' a tree rather than into it. It seems more prudent to assume that all that we consider 'alive' is a Conscious Perspective, such as we. We have no evidence to refute that and it seems that science is finding 'life' everywhere they look, these days.


Your 'guestimates' are just that, an interpretation of some evidence from only one Perspective, a 'linear one'. There is no reason that an instantly created billion year old chunk of monkey butt cannot be, depending on Perspective, 'timeless' (no age at all) and a billion years old (in the concepts of the linear Perspectives who are interpreting it that way.
This complete Universe is made of timeless synchronously existing moments/percepts. Time and linearity are merely one Perspective. Science even dismisses 'time' (as no more than a 'local' attraction in the mind of the Perspective) and thus the 'actual antiquity' of anything. Everything exists in a timeless Now! Even billion year old monkey butts...

As I said, it is what scientists say, so I am going along with that.

From the perspective of an earthworm it may be different.

But, then, earthworms are not scientists, last I heard.

I am afraid that my perspective is irrevocably linear and scientific.

For that is the perspective that gives us knowledge, and I am rather in favor of knowledge.

Okay, I understand that in order to gain (a specifically desired) 'knowledge' (justification/rationalization for what we 'already (feel that we) know', rather than an open ended desire for 'truth' wherever it might lead..., for instance), a sigular source Perspective might well suffice. I find that the more Perspectives experienced/understood, the greater the understanding (as opposed to 'knowledge'), the 'wider' the Perspective.

The way you use language is odd. You consistently use apostrophes before and after those words you feel aren't descriptive or clear enough on their own. The apostrophes appear to be a buffer of sorts, allowing you some kind of leeway while you articulate your thoughts. You capitalize certain words, such as "Reality", "Perspective" and "Universe", without really explaining why, and you indent certain phrases or notions for seemingly greater pronouncement. Unfortunately, I rarely quite understand why you choose those things to be pronounced. In the end, I find the majority of what you type vague and very hard to understand. I think I'd need some kind of handbook in order to decipher your writings.

I'm not attacking you by any means, it just fascinates me. Please don't take offense to this. I have some conceptualization of the notions you speak of, and most of it appears interesting.

I never heard of the term "scarequotes", but I've been looking for a term that can be used to explain exactly what you stated. Thanks - added to vocabulary!

The way you use language is odd. You consistently use apostrophes before and after those words you feel aren't descriptive or clear enough on their own.

The apostrophes appear to be a buffer of sorts, allowing you some kind of leeway while you articulate your thoughts.

You capitalize certain words, such as "Reality"

"Perspective"

and "Universe",

without really explaining why,

and you indent certain phrases or notions for seemingly greater pronouncement. Unfortunately, I rarely quite understand why you choose those things to be pronounced.

In the end, I find the majority of what you type vague and very hard to understand.

I think I'd need some kind of handbook in order to decipher your writings.

I'm not attacking you by any means, it just fascinates me. Please don't take offense to this. I have some conceptualization of the notions you speak of, and most of it appears interesting.

Yes. If I were using a word that is right from the dictionary, I wouldn't use the semi-quotes.