Can we share consciousness
with the objects that surround us?
I despise transhumanists and most humanists in general.
They can take their cyborg envisionment of the future and shove it.
Hmmm… 
What Are the Elements in the Human Body?
- Oxygen (65%)
- Carbon (18%)
- Hydrogen (10%)
- Nitrogen (3%)
- Calcium (1.5%)
- Phosphorus (1.0%)
- Potassium (0.35%)
- Sulfur (0.25%)
- Sodium (0.15%)
- Magnesium (0.05%)
- Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
- Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)
Are you sure
the above is the only atomic recipe that we should approve 
This is not shared consciousness. This is technology. To call a piece of paper conscious under any definition as a philosophical exercise is a stretch, but to assume that a piece of paper is conscious on anywhere even close to what a human being calls consciousness is just moronic. Some day with AI, maybe.
maybe you could try and stretch your consciousness a bit more
after all
we share the same atomic carbon relationship
wait!
maybe consciousness is not in carbon
how about calcium?
And none of our neurons. Well, I don’t know, maybe you share the same thought patterns as a piece of paper, but I don’t.
When I write my thoughts down on a piece of paper
I believe it shares them with me
we need each other
all of matter is a collaboration
no atomic recipe is greater than another
it is how the universe communicates
What is your evidence MagnetMan?
Could you elaborate? Do you have evidence to support this claim?
No one is suggesting otherwise. However, difference recipes serve different purposes.
[/quote]
Evidence?
Fixed.
Also, you can believe that all you want. That doesn’t make it an accurate representation of what’s happening.
You know, that’s an idea. Why don’t you go and share your thoughts exclusively with paper? It would mean a lot more to paper than it would to humanity.
I am.
I am tired of answering these questions
let me provide instead
one of the best speeches on the divide between science and God I have heard
here follows an extract from Dan Brown’s novel Demons and Angels
“Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident.” “Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God’s world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning … and all it finds is more questions.”
.
“The ancient war between science and religion is over.” “You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences. mind quests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented. crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.”
Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species … moving down a path of destruction."
"Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.
"To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.
"And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its j power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!. You ask what does God look like. I say where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God’s hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?
"Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith … all faiths … are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable … With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves … and to a higher truth. religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see religion as i do they would see a modern miracle…a brotherhood of imperfect simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion to a world spinning out of control.
The opening lines are sufficient:
The first statement attempts to trivialize the momentous achievements in medicine and quality of life that a pursuit of science has made possible. It attempts to marginalize the untold millions upon millions of lives that have been saved from the traditional (pre-industrial) viral and bacterial cullings that ravaged civilizations. The assertion is then made that these achievements have eliminated “wonder” in the world. The lack of imagination and humility before the awesome splendour and staggering diversity in nature is shocking.
“Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies.”
The point here? Removing the mystery from beauty does not diminish the beauty. Rather, it is through knowledge and understanding that true, naked appreciation is possible. I have no need, nor desire, for any mysticism to supplement that which I find beautiful.
“The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations.”
Again, the point? These statements appear to romanticize a state of ignorance - as if wonder and appreciation were only possible through ignorance. Perhaps something along the lines of “ignorance is bliss”?
“Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident.”"
We are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Fortunately for me, I could care less. My self-worth is not prescribed to me by some imaginary authority on high. I define my self-worth insofar as I’m able and relative to my values and the pursuit and achievement of those values. Science freed the human mind from a state of fearful, irrational mysticism, a destructive prescribed morality and a perpetual state of prostration. It opened our eyes to what the world actually is - and coincidently, it proved more beautiful, more wonderous and more mysterious than we ever imagined to be possible.
You can proselytize all you like about what you “believe” based on your personal subjective experience and interpretation … but it doesn’t change facts. For those aspects of existence to which we have no understanding and can only speculate - I choose to err on the side of uncertainty and state, proudly, that I do no know; rather than give in to the traps of mysticism.
If you’re interested in a decent discussion of the division between science and religion - you should try reading Jay Gould’s thoughts on the matter. Not that I agree with him either… but, imo, he provides a little more substance than Dan Brown…
Dairdo, magnethead is the founder of a cult. You’d have better results arguing with…paper.
I just show up every once in a while to shoot down his pseudoscience.
More people have died of AIDS in the age of modern science
than ever died of plague.
and cancer still reigns
It would seem that Nature
and her laws of non-trespass
remains a step ahead
no matter what science has to say about it.
"Ou
Source?
I’d say we should adjust for % of population that died of these historical and modern diseases… but it really isn’t necessary. Just take a look at how many people have been known to have died from influenza alone over the last 300 years… malaria… plague… and a host of others. The death tolls are shocking – and those are only the known deaths in modern history. These deaths at a time when world popultions were down around the 1 billion mark…
Man’s mind - and the products of man’s mind in the form of science and technology - have provided our only defence against the ravages of nature. AIDS and cancer are both modern, horrible killers - I agree. However, do you suppose we’d fair better in abject prostration, on our knees, than seeking an earthly solution with the best and brightest of our minds? Just one historically verified example of some other unearthly solution would be enough to win me over…
Ah. Thanks Anthem. I’m new to the forum and didn’t realize that.
Cheers for the heads up.
Nobody is arguing against the fact that science is an essential step in the evolution of human consciousness
without advanced technology the sustainable management of an entire planet is impossible
the argument is against scientist’s cynical attitude and dismissal of super-natural influences
without respect for the moral government such belief has on human behavior
The spread of AIDS is a graphic example of modern moral decrepitude
virginity and marriage vows have become a joke
and promiscuity the norm
Science will not suffer if it stops scoffing at religion
We all honor science
it is the result of 100,000 generations of ancestral effort
but I have nothing but disdain for those book-learned scientists
and sneer at any who question them
Science is an extension of ancient alchemy
its earliest origins lie in shamanism
Among shamans
it is still considered to be corrupt to sell esoteric knowledge and potions
learned from a master
the pure healer gives freely and relies on the donations of the thankful
nowadays scientists patent and sell the accumulated learning of the Ages
to the highest bidder
as though it was their personal property
without the slightest twinge of conscience
and tell the religious to shut up
with an astonishing show of arrogance
with the assumption that believing in God
is a sign of a primitive intellect
and no knowledge of science